Showing up in court

Woody Allen — a source of many wryly wise sayings, despite the abominable wreck of his own personal life — famously quipped that "80 percent of life is showing up."

In litigation, the winning percentage for those who merely manage to show up is somewhat lower, but still substantial. A couple of the tick marks in my "wins" column as a young lawyer came from small claims court cases in which my corporate client — required by Texas law to appear through a lawyer and unable to appear "pro se" as a natural person might have — paid me to show up, and the person suing it didn't.

At that point in each case, I solemnly rose to my feet to make a "motion for entry of judgment nihil dicit" — which in one instance drew a chuckle from the judge and in the other, an uncomprehending stare. The Latin phrase "nihil dicit" — literally "he says nothing" — traditionally is used with reference to a judgment entered when the defendant fails to deny the plaintiff's claim, but can also be used, as best I was able to determine, when the plaintiff files a claim and then fails to appear to present it at trial. Perhaps the uncomprehending look was from a Justice of the Peace with superior Latin skills to my own meager ones, though; regardless, we both agreed that since I was there for the defendant and the plaintiff wasn't, the defendant should win with no further ado.

There are, of course, analogs in the criminal courts, as this story from today's Houston Chronicle indicates:

After demanding her day in court, Shannon Rechter decided not to show up.

The 38-year-old mother who claimed she was assaulted in the carpool line of a west Houston private school did not come to municipal court Wednesday morning for the scheduled trial of Sandra Chiang.

Chiang, a 40-year-old mother of two, was accused of slapping Rechter in the face for cutting in the carpool line on Dec. 13, 2003.

But without Rechter to testify, the misdemeanor assault charge was dismissed....

Rechter's absence came as a surprise after she had vigorously pursued the case by calling police, filing charges, frequently calling the city prosecutor's office and complaining that officials at the school did not take her claims seriously.

She said she gave up after another parent from school refused to testify on her behalf.

"Without a witness, I had no case," Rechter explained Wednesday afternoon, when reached by telephone.

Of course, at least in this particular courtroom, Ms. Rechter technically "had no case" either with or without supporting witnesses. Despite the Chronicle's misleading headline — "Plaintiff fails to show up for trial of carpool mom" — Ms. Rechter wasn't a "plaintiff," nor in charge of the case, but rather the "complaining witness" whose claims had prompted a (probably justifiably reluctant) prosecutor to press charges. The case belonged to the City of Houston, for an alleged offense against the peace and dignity of the City — not to Ms. Rechter.

What annoys most people about this story is the notion of going to court over a childish squabble that may or may not have involved physical contact, but in no one's version of events involved any damage more lasting than a briefly reddened cheek (perhaps from a slap, perhaps from anger). What particularly annoys me, though, is the notion that Ms. Rechter went so far out of her way to start the wheel of the criminal justice system rolling, and then hijacked the prosecutor's decision over whether to proceed. She wasted my tax dollars by treating the criminal justice system as if it were her own to control.  That's a poor lesson for a parent to teach her children.