Cross Examination
Setting: A courtroom. A LAWYER is cross-examining the ACCUSER’S BROTHER.
LAWYER: I remind you young man that you are under oath. Now did he or didn't he?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: He did.
LAWYER: Aha! But in your deposition you said he didn't!
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: I did not!
LAWYER: Did so!
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Did not!
LAWYER: Did so!
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Did not!
LAWYER: You did not or he did not?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: I did not say that he did not.
LAWYER: Did not what?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Did not masturbate in front of me and my brother in his bedroom.
LAWYER: So now you're back to saying he did not masturbate in front of you and your brother in the bedroom.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: No, no, no! I'm saying I did not say that he did not do that. He did do that!
LAWYER: So now you've switched again and you're saying that he did it, that he masturbated in front of you and your brother in the bedroom.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes. I mean no, I'm not switching anything, I'm still saying that he masturbated in front of me and my brother in his bedroom.
LAWYER: But not on a Tuesday.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: What?
LAWYER: Well in your deposition you claimed it happened on a Wednesday.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: A Wednesday?
LAWYER: Yes indeedy do young man, a Wednesday, but just now you said Tuesday. Well which was it? A Tuesday or a Wednesday? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I'm beginning to think this confused young man doesn't even know the days of the week! Son, once again I remind you that you are under oath.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: It was like four years ago!
LAWYER: Never mind. Now then. You say my client gave you and your brother "Jesus juice," is that right?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.
LAWYER: And what is this so-called "Jesus juice"?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: White wine. He'd put it in a Coke can so nobody could see what we were drinking.
LAWYER: Aha! In your deposition you said red wine! Your honor, this is preposterous. The witness is unreliable! He can't tell a Tuesday from a Wednesday, one day it's red wine the next day it's white wine – maybe he wasn't with my client at all! Maybe he was with Prince or Tito or Jermaine! Move to dismiss! Yes sir I can control my outbursts and I will control them. Now, you adolescent little temptress boy toy person – yes, sir, sorry sir – let's get down to what happened in my client's bedroom. You say he showed you pornography.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: That's right. Internet sites, magazines.
LAWYER: Was this one of the magazines he showed you? [produces copy of Barely Legal]
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes, that's it, Barely Legal. I remember that.
LAWYER: Do you?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Sure.
LAWYER: Aha! It may interest you to know, vile seductress boy, that this particular issue of Barely Legal was not released until two months after you stopped going to my client's special ranch for your little visits.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Well, then it wasn't that exact issue, but…
LAWYER: Oh, it wasn't this exact issue now, oh, I see, you just said it was but now it isn't, maybe it was this magazine, maybe it was some other magazine. Maybe it was the New York Times Magazine? Maybe it wasn't any magazine at all! Huh? Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, please note how this unreliable witness plays fast and loose with the facts. What else does he play fast and loose with, this lascivious little…? Sorry sir, yes I understand sir. Well. Why don't you just tell us in your own words what exactly supposedly happened the day you walked into my client's bedroom unannounced like some harlot.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Well, I walked in, and my brother was asleep – passed out on the bed – and he had one hand down my brother's underpants, and with his other hand he was, well, touching himself.
LAWYER: Touching himself where? On the face, on the arm? Is there anything inherently wrong with touching yourself? Please be specific.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: He was touching himself on his, you know, his thing.
LAWYER: His thing.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes.
LAWYER: His wee wee? His pee pee? Was he touching himself on his peepy weepy? Is that what you're saying?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes. His penis.
LAWYER: Perhaps he had an itch?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: I don't think so. It was fully engorged. He was stroking it.
LAWYER: Hello! Whoa Nellie! Excuse me! That's fine language for a boy of 14 to be using in a public courtroom. Fully engorged and stroking indeed. How large would you say…yes yes, sorry your honor, I withdraw the question completely. Let us just accept for the moment this young beauty's contention that my client's thingy was fully engorged and that he was indeed engaged in the so-called stroking activity aforementioned. Now then. And you say that his other hand was down your brother's underpants.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: That's right. Down his underpants, while he was passed out on the bed.
LAWYER: I see. I see. And what would you say if I were suddenly to shout "Aha!" again, like this: Aha! Because in your deposition you said my client's other hand was ON your brother's underpants, not IN the underpants. I'm sure you'll agree there's quite an important difference there, between whether my client's free hand, the one that was not involved in self-stroking of his engorged tiddly winkus, was on your brother's underpants or actually down inside the underpants. Surely it's no crime to touch somebody's clothing? Perhaps he wanted to make sure your brother was wearing real cotton. Perhaps he simply lost his balance during his stroking activity and put his other hand out to catch himself, inadvertently ending up in your brother's underpants. Can you honestly swear that my client was not off balance?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Umm, well,…
LAWYER: Of course you can't. You don't know whether his hand was in the pants or on the pants, on a Tuesday or a Wednesday, or what sort of wine he was giving you – allegedly giving you – to drink. Your honor, this is no kind of case at all! This is a travesty! The witness clearly is unable to provide reliable testimony! Once again, I move to dismiss! Fine, then we'll continue. All righty then, firm young missy boy, have it your way. So my client's free non-stroking hand was down your brother's underpants then was it? Is that your current contention?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes it is. He had his hand down the underpants, and he was sort of, I don't know, squoodging around in there.
LAWYER: Squoodging around.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yeah, you know, just kind of in there, squoodging.
LAWYER: I see. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I must warn you that the following questions I must ask will necessarily involve some very frank, possibly shocking terminology. I apologize but there is really no avoiding it if we want to get at the unmistakable truth of this matter. Now. Let us be clear. If my client's non-stroking hand was down your brother's underpants, then presumably it came in contact with your brother's smooth young peepsy weepsy or in medical terms, his penis. Would you agree?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Yes I would.
LAWYER: Excellent. Well, that's all well and good, but if that is the case I must ask you, what part of his so-called penis was he touching exactly? Was it on the dorsal or ventral side? Did he manipulate the corpus cavernosa or the corpus spongiosum? The glans? Possibly the frenulum? Apologies to the jury. Eh? Do you suppose he fingered the frenulum?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Umm, I don't know, what's the frenulum?
LAWYER: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is outrageous! This young vixen's testimony lacks all credibility! He claims to have seen my client squoodging his brother's wampum yet he is utterly unable to say whether the frenulum was involved! It's obvious to me that he's simply not sure what it was that he saw if in fact he saw anything that day, whether it was Tuesday or a Wednesday or if he had been drinking red or white wine or what filthy magazine they'd been looking at! Your honor, I move to dismiss! This is a frivolous case utterly without merit!
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Hang on a minute there, mister! That's not fair! He gave my brother alcohol, showed him dirty pictures and molested him! Why are you trying to confuse me with all these little minor details? All I'm trying to do here is tell the truth!
LAWYER: You can't handle the truth.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Can so.
LAWYER: Can not.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: Can so!
LAWYER: Can…yes, OK, your honor, I'm sorry, yes, I'll finish up. Can not. Now. I have just one more question for you, little mister foxy trousers.
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: What is it?
LAWYER: Will you go on a camping holiday with me?
ACCUSER'S BROTHER: He asked me! He asked me!
--END (with apologies to Monty Python ("It's not theft, it's an homage!")--
[Comments (1)]