The Chewbacca Defense

DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
edited May 2007 in Strut Central
So, I was looking this up to post it in a thread that has since been removed, due to inflammatory content. It turns out that there is now a wikipedia article about it which claims the term has gained some small currency in legal circles. Lawyers - are they now teaching the Chewbacca Defense in law school?Cochran[/b]: Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I'm a lawyer defending a major record company, and I'm talkin' about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you're in that jury room deliberatin' and conjugatin' the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests."Look at the silly monkey!

  Comments


  • GuzzoGuzzo 8,611 Posts
    never heard of it

  • DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
    As excerpted from Wikipedia:

    The Chewbacca Defense has been applied to real world legal strategies in the media and by some legal experts. Commentator Michael Masnick of Techdirt Corporate Intelligence noted[/b] in 2003 that Trojan horse defense was becoming a key defence strategy in computer crime cases, particularly highlighting a claim made by a Slashdot story poster regarding the SCO v. IBM case:
    ??????because juries don't understand technical jargon, we're getting closer and closer to situations where lawyers are going to employ the Chewbacca Defense[/b], as created for South Park. Already, Slashdot has suggested that SCO is using a Chewbacca Defense in their case. Basically, you just have a convincing lawyer make up a bunch of technical stuff, make connections that don't have anything to do with one another, point out that it does not make sense, and therefore, the case should get thrown out. The legal strategy of the twenty-first century: trojan horses and Chewbacca.???[/b]

    Criminologist Dr. Thomas O'Connor says that when DNA evidence shows "inclusion", that is, does not exonerate a client by exclusion from the DNA sample provided, "About the only thing you can do is attack the lab for its (lack of) quality assurance and proficiency testing, or use a 'Chewbacca Defense' ???and try to razzle-dazzle the jury about how complex and complicated the other side's evidence or probability estimates are." Forensic scientist Erin Kenneally has argued that court challenges to digital evidence frequently use the Chewbacca Defense per se, in that they present multiple alternative explanations of forensic evidence obtained from computers and internet providers to raise the reasonable doubt understood by a jury. Kenneally also presents methods that can be used to rebut a Chewbacca Defense. Kenneally and colleague Anjali Swienton have presented this topic before the Florida State Court System and at the 2005 American Academy of Forensic Sciences annual meeting.

  • DB_CooperDB_Cooper Manhatin' 7,823 Posts
Sign In or Register to comment.