
Rettig filed her motion to correct what she considered a derogatory term: “The State has noticed in the past few years that it has become commonplace during trials for attorneys for defendants, and especially Mr. Justice, to refer to State’s attorneys as ‘the Government.’ The State believes that such a reference is used in a derogatory way and is meant to make the State’s attorney seem oppressive and to inflame the jury.” So it appears “the State” is fine but “the government” is derogatory? I am not sure how long Rettig has been practicing but it really has not been “the past few years.” Prosecutors have been referred to as “the government” since before Marbury v. Madison.
Justice pointed out the obvious to the court but then suggested a compromise: rather than being called “lawyer” or “defense attorney” he would prefer “‘Defender of the Innocent’ . . . or would also accept the designation ‘Guardian of the Realm.’” He also indicated that he would accept “Captain Justice.”
He ended with aplomb: “WHEREFORE, Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm and Leader of the Resistance, primarily asks that the Court deny the State’s motion, as lacking legal basis.”
First of all, Ms. Helper, it is Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm, not Defender of the Realm. You are confusing his alternative title as “Defender of the Innocent.” Geez.
Second, if the response did not seem in good faith, you may want to look at the original motion and the standards of your office in filing frivolous papers with the court. I know what the “right word” would be for the motion: “meritless” followed by “ridiculous.”
The court threw out the motion and Captain Justice is back at work defending the innocent against the minions of the government.
Well done, Captain Justice, and Godspeed.
Source: Tennessean
