From the Department of Dubious Defenses: Small Is Beautiful
A growing trend in criminal defense: invoking your modest endowment as exculpatory evidence.
Back in March, we wrote about this case, in which a Florida defendant argued that his penis was too small to inflict the injuries sustained by a rape victim. Now we hear about a more extreme version of the “size matters” defense, from the Houston Chronicle:
Houston’s 14th Court of Appeals on Tuesday upheld the conviction of a local doctor for indecent exposure.The court rejected the argument by high-profile attorney Dick DeGuerin and his associate Neal Davis that the doctor could not have exposed himself to an undercover cop because that which is alleged to have been exposed is too small to have been seen.
Too small to be seen? Some defendants would rather serve time than rely upon this defense.
Alas, the defendant doctor got the worst of both worlds: the world now knows about his wee wee-wee, and he was convicted (with the conviction affirmed on appeal). Columnist Rick Casey sums it up:
The bottom line: This is a case that could be described as de minimis, a legal term defined by Black’s Law Dictionary as “1. Trifling, minimal. 2. (Of a fact or thing) so insignificant that a court may overlook it in deciding an issue or case.”
Quips our tipster: “So much for the myth that everything is bigger in Texas.”
Accused flasher loses ‘to small to see’ defense [Houston Chronicle via Legal Blog Watch]
Earlier: From the Department of Dubious Defenses: If the Trojan Mangum Don’t Fit, You Must Acquit
(19) 
Comments
First (again). yawn.
Penis to small to be seen? Oh shit! He's going to make a great "bitch" for somebody in prison, no danglies getting in the way and such.
V Monkey
Less is more? (a truly horrible expression). A new interp of the de minimis defense and actually a great try. In other words, this very small penis couldn't possibly cause any harm, nor even much shock, and even less awe. As such, who cares if it was flashed!
And the guy is represented "by high-profile attorney Dick DeGuerin."
hehehehehe
And I like the way Lat put the line break after Dick.
Why wasn't this a Kash post?
I'll have a shot of FIFTHsky, please.
There once was a lawyer named Rex
With very small organs of sex
When charged with exposure
he replied with composure,
"De minimus non curat lex"
Well played, 7.
7 - I like you. Lots.
Damn you, 5.
-6
An attorney named Dick couldn't prevent his client, a mini dick, from getting dicked by the long arm of the law? Shameful. Didn't they call George Costanza to testify?
Guys at my high school used to expose their manginas all the time, it was no big deal.
Fix that typo in the link to the Chronicle article Lat; it's annoying me.
7- excellent.
I have a small penis, but went to HYS (literally all three, AB, Harvard, MA Stanford, JD Yale) and work at V3, so it's all good.
This was especially stupid because no one would have ever known about this case other than hiring Dick to pursue an ineffective assistance claim, which then involved calling doctors to testify about average sizes etc. The guy could have taken his fine and probation and gone home.
OK, first, the doctor’s penis size was never introduced into evidence at the trial. I came up post conviction at a hearing to determine if the MD was denied effective assistance of counsel by NOT bringing it up.
The title of this post should have been Department of Dubious Missed Defenses.
Trial counsel testified that the doctor did not want to go there.
But the amazing part of the story is the actual penis size: 2.8 inches. Which story I have highlighted and intend to show to my GF tonight.
--Massive 4-incher
Are we talking 2.8 at half mast or at full mast?
Subsequent appeal has arm measurements