11th Circuit

Circuit Gives Us Bible, Star Trek, And Bourbon... And Really What More Is There To Life?

Drunk trekkies invade the courts.

By  
on
Judge Thapar's chambers.

Judge Thapar’s chambers.

No one appreciates a cultural reference-laden opinion more than us. It’s easily the best part of an appellate judge’s job. So when a district judge sits by designation, you best believe he’s going to take full advantage of this moment in the spotlight.

The Southern District of Florida Blog has a doozy of an opinion coming out of the Eleventh Circuit. In the infamous, at least in Florida, case of the “B-Girls,” the appellate court has reversed the convictions of a gaggle of women charged with getting men drunk and then running up their bar tabs.

Frankly that sounds like standard operating procedure in a bar, but apparently it’s become weaponized in Miami or something.

In any event, the appellate court concluded that the jury should have been instructed: “that they must acquit if they found that the defendants had tricked the victims into entering a transaction but nevertheless gave the victims exactly what they asked for and charged them exactly what they agreed to pay.”

Enter Judge Amul Thapar of the Eastern District of Kentucky. Now this is a guy who doesn’t f**k around. He put an 84-year-old nun in prison. So when he got a chance to pen an opinion about gettin’ drunk, he came prepared.

Now imagine another, more common scenario: a young woman asks a rich businessman to buy her a drink at Bob’s Bar. The businessman buys the drink, and afterwards the young woman decides to leave. Did the man get what he bargained for? Yes. He received his drink, and he had the opportunity to buy a young woman a drink. Does it change things if the woman is Bob’s sister and he paid her to recruit customers? No; regardless of Bob’s relationship with the woman, the businessman got exactly what he bargained for. If, on the other hand, Bob promised to pour the man a glass of Pappy Van Winkle** but gave him a slug of Old Crow*** instead, well, that would be fraud. Why? Because the misrepresentation goes to the value of the bargain.

** “Pappy’s,” as it is often called, is a particularly rare bourbon varietal: nearly impossible to find, and nearly impossible to afford when one finds it.

***Although Old Crow has a venerable pedigree—reportedly the go-to drink of Mark Twain, Ulysses S. Grant, Hunter Thompson, and Henry Clay—it is not Kentucky’s most-expensive liquor. Its “deluxe” version, “Old Crow Reserve,” retails for approximately $15 per bottle.

Sponsored

Substituting Old Crow for Pappy’s? If Judge Thapar put an elderly nun in prison one imagines he’d be willing to whip out the death penalty for this one. And with good cause.

He also cites the Bible, because what fraud opinion is complete without the Ninth Commandment. If you don’t recall which one that is off the top of your head… well, then you shouldn’t have been so uppity when Roy Moore wanted to put a copy up outside the courthouse for reference. Sure it was a gross abuse of the First Amendment, but you’d never be in this awkward pickle.

He also has thoughts on the ideal juror:

The question before us, however, is not whether the proposed instruction was “logically entailed” by the given instruction, but whether it was “substantially covered”; and those are meaningfully different concepts. After all, the average juror is not Mr. Spock. If he were, then a trial-court judge’s job would be much easier. He could instruct the jury in broad strokes—instructing only as to the bare elements of the crime, perhaps—and be confident that the jury would deduce all of the finer-grained implications that must logically follow. As it stands, however, the vast majority of American juries are composed exclusively of humans. And humans, unlike Vulcans, sometimes need a bit more guidance as to exactly what the court’s instructions logically entail.

“[T]he vast majority of American juries are composed exclusively of humans.” Amazing. Judge Thapar resists the urge to compare Pappy’s to illegal Romulan Ale, and that’s a shame.

Sponsored

Though for my money this is the best line:

That inference, too, hardly requires Holmesian feats of deduction.****

****Sherlock or Oliver Wendell: either Holmes will do here.

The whole opinion is available on the next page… it’s some really good stuff. I’d toast Judge Thapar with some Pappy… if I only had some around here.

B-Girls convictions reversed with citations to the Bible, Vulcans and Pappy’s Bourbon [Southern District of Florida Blog]

Earlier: This Federal Judge Just Loves Nerding Out
This Federal Judge Is As Obsessed With Game Of Thrones As The Rest Of Us

Joe Patrice is an editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.

1 2Next »

Topics

, ,