A year after the pandemic upended the state’s court system creating a backlog of cases, jury trials will soon resume in some unconventional settings, including a Cape Cod resort that features a water park.
The Boston Globe
BAILIFF: Oyez, oyez, oyez–all rise, the Cape Cod District Water Park Court is now in session, Judge Peter McShane presiding.
JUDGE: What’s on the docket today?
BAILIFF: We got the case of Melinda Baker vs. Tommy Johnson, aggravated splashing in the first degree.
JUDGE: Are the attorneys for the parties present and prepared?
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Yes, your honor.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Same here.
JUDGE: (. . .) I’m waiting.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: For what?
BAILIFF: For you to say “your honor,” you mook!
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: This is like “Mother, may I?” Do I have to?
BAILIFF: If you know what’s good for you.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: All right–“Your honor.”
JUDGE: That’s better. Call your first witness, counselor.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your honor, I call Courtney Baker, the plaintiff’s sister.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE: On what grounds?
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: The proposed witness is related to the plaintiff so that’s a conflict of interest. Plus I have photographic evidence that she was in pari delicto.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: I object to the objection. He can’t use Latin because we won’t have that subject until 8th grade.
JUDGE: You’re both overruled. Take the stand.
BAILIFF: Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
WITNESS: I do.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Bailiff, check behind her back!
BAILIFF: For what?
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: If she has her fingers crossed, it’s King’s X-No Noogies. She could be perjuring herself and you couldn’t do nothing about it!
BAILIFF: (. . .) Nope, nothing but a pack of Jolly Ranchers in her pocket.
JUDGE: The hard candy, or the soft gummies?
BAILIFF: Classic hard candy, your honor.
JUDGE: Proceed counselor.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: On the afternoon of Thursday, April 15th, did you witness Tommy Johnson splash Melinda Baker in an aggressive manner at the Cape Cod Water Park?
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Objection, your honor.
JUDGE: What grounds?
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Leading the witness.
JUDGE: Sustained. Watch it, counselor.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Watch what?
JUDGE: Your zipper–your fly’s open.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: (looks down) No it’s not.
JUDGE: Made ya look! Proceed.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Where were you on the afternoon of Thursday, April 15th?
COURTNEY: Me and my sister . . .
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Objection.
JUDGE: What grounds?
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: She shoulda said “My sister and I . . .”
JUDGE: I’m going to let it in.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: It’s bad grammar!
JUDGE: Counselor, if you’d read page 456 of the 1937 edition of H.L. Mencken’s “The American Language” you’d know it’s permitted. Answer the question.
COURTNEY: Me and my sister were at the Cape Cod Water Park.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Having a good time?
COURTNEY: You bet! They have the abandoned pirate ship, and the tube slides, and super soakers, and . . .
JUDGE: Just answer the question, you’re not writing a “How I Spent My Summer Vacation” essay.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: And did anything happen to spoil your fun?
COURTNEY: Yes.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Please tell the court about it . . . in your own words.
COURTNEY: Two boys approached us on inflatable sharks and began to splash us–hard!
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: And is either boy in the courtroom today?
COURTNEY: Yes.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Can you identify him?
COURTNEY: That stupid doody-head over there.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Your honor, I must object to this vicious vituperation!
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: She’s just using colorful language, as she was instructed by Mrs. Ilmburger, her fourth-grade teacher.
JUDGE: Kindly instruct your client to refrain from insults that may prejudice the jury.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Fine. You are referring to the defendant?
COURTNEY: Yes. And he is as stupid doody-head, he put chewing gum on my seat in the cafeteria.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Your witness.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Courtney, have you left anything out of the story you just told the court?
COURTNEY: Like what?
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Like the fact that both you and your sister had whacked the defendant before the so-called “splash attack” took place.
PLAINTIFF’S COUNSEL: Objection on the grounds of relevance!
JUDGE: Seems relevant to me. Girls are often provocateurs, luring young boys into a life of crime with coquettish looks, teasing, snickering behind their hands. Answer the question.
COURTNEY: Well, maybe I gave him just a little tap with my pink foam noodle.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: And why did you do that?
COURTNEY: I wanted him to be my boy friend–duh.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Your honor, I move for a directed verdict of innocent.
JUDGE: Innocent–that kid? He’s got trouble written all over him.
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: (. . .) Where–I don’t see any writing on . . .
JUDGE: Figuratively, you nimmy-not!
DEFENDANT’S COUNSEL: Oh. Still, he’s entitled to the presumption of innocence.
JUDGE: That’s a mighty big presumption for such a little boy.
DEFENDANT: I’m not a little boy–I’m eleven and a half!
JUDGE: I’m going to call a short recess. Why don’t the parties try to work out an out-of-court settlement out-of-court while I go to the bathroom.
PLAINTIFF: Can you give us some parameters, some sentencing guidelines?
JUDGE: The usual sentence is to write between 100 and 200 lines on the blackboard saying “I will not splash a girl unless she started it or is really cute and I’m trying to get her to like
I thought the courts were pretty much at that level before the pandemic …