Interesting court ruling in a trial I had yesterday:
My client was charged with assault, and the prosecutor refused to make a deal because client is an MMA fighter.
At trial, prosecutor attempts to question alleged victim about fact that my client if an MMA fighter. I immediately object, ask to approach the bench, and tell the judge that my client's occupation has no relevance to whether he assaulted the victim. Prosecutor becomes very vocal and laughs at my objection, stating that as an MMA fighter my client is more prone to violence and therefore testimony regarding my client's occupation is definitely relevant.
The judge looks at me and says, "Well, he has a point? How do you counter that argument, counsel?"
Without hesitation I look back at the judge and say, "Your honor, if I bring a client in tomorrow who is charged with reckless operation of a motor vehicle, are you going to agree to dismiss the charges if I show that the client is a NASCAR driver, because obviously as a NASCAR driver, my client could never be a reckless driver.
And are you going to extend this logic to a physician who removes feeding tubes from someone in a permanently unconscious state...is that physician more prone to commit murder?
I guarantee you the prosecutor can produce no evidence which supports his theory that an MMA fighter is more prone to violence, and therefore evidence that my client is an MMA fighter is not relevant and will serve only to unfairly prejudice the jury."
The Judge agreed with me and instructed the prosecutor that he was not to ask questions about my client's occupation.
Jury found my client not guilty on the assault charge. Booyah!