A defense lawyer's pants caught on fire while he was delivering a closing argument at an arson trial:
Stephen Gutierrez, who was arguing that his client's car spontaneously combusted and was not intentionally set on fire, had been fiddling in his pocket as he was about to address jurors when smoke began billowing out his right pocket, witnesses told the Miami Herald.
He rushed out of the Miami courtroom, leaving spectators stunned. After jurors were ushered out, Gutierrez returned unharmed, with a singed pocket, and insisted it wasn't a staged defense demonstration gone wrong, observers said. Instead, Gutierrez blamed a faulty battery in an e-cigarette, witnesses told the Miami Herald. "It was surreal," one observer told the Miami Herald.
Jurors convicted his client of second-degree arson anyway.
Related Stories
A Miami lawyer's pants caught on fire during an arson trial. He's about to be suspended
The Florida Supreme Court wants to suspend the Miami lawyer who drew worldwide notoriety after his pants burst into flames during an arson trial.
[...] In March 2017, Gutierrez was representing a Miami man accused of torching his own car for insurance money. In a story first reported by the Miami Herald, Gutierrez was arguing to jurors that the blaze might have been caused by spontaneous combustion when flames and smoke began billowing from his pants.
[...] Prosecutors launched a criminal investigation. In a memo on the case, Assistant State Attorney Michael Filteau said "it seems obvious" the fire was a "a stunt or demonstration ... meant to illustrate the feasibility of his spontaneous combustion theory of defense."
But under Florida law, prosecutors said they could not prove Gutierrez acted with "criminal intent" — such a demonstration, while misleading and unethical, could technically be legal.
The Florida Bar too launched a probe. The investigation found that Gutierrez, after the guilty verdict, filed a bogus insurance claim with GEICO, which had insured the car. For his handling of the case, a referee ruled that Gutierrez should be found guilty of ethical breaches involving dishonesty and sham claims. He pleaded guilty to the violations.
Stephen Gutierrez was suspended on November 14:
Administrative Order 2019-89 Order of Suspension of Attorney Stephen Gutierrez Florida Bar 117515
Previously: Lawyer's Pants Catch on Fire During Arson Trial
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Gaaark on Friday March 10 2017, @01:22PM (4 children)
The 'from the .. dept' line says it all.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @01:31PM
In fact, the correct summary is:
Defense lawyer forgets to wear his lawyer's pants (model asbestos 600 celsius), wears normal pair instead, guess what happens at the trial.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday March 10 2017, @04:30PM (2 children)
The "dept." line is one of the few places where the editors have some creative freedom when publishing a story. Sometimes there's a bad case of writer's block. But then there are the times when the Muses [wikipedia.org] are with us... and we all benefit!
So glad you liked this one!
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @04:57PM
The "dept." line is one of the few places where the editors have some creative freedom when publishing a story.
I sure wish more editors out there would adopt this philosophy :P
(Score: 3, Funny) by Gaaark on Friday March 10 2017, @06:11PM
I was going to write "Lawyer, lawyer, pants on foyer" but my 9th grade French teacher smacked me with a ruler.
Don't know where the hell she came from, but damn.
--- Please remind me if I haven't been civil to you: I'm channeling MDC. ---Gaaark 2.0 ---
(Score: 4, Funny) by rondon on Friday March 10 2017, @01:26PM (6 children)
I'm here for the jokes people, lets get to crackin!
My take - if only he could have lit a fire under the jury's ass, then he might have been successful.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Rivenaleem on Friday March 10 2017, @01:36PM
Keep a close eye on the Samsung "Trial of the Century". There's bound to be a few similar events there.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @01:49PM (4 children)
It's got to be
Liar Liar Pants on Fire.
(Score: 2) by martyb on Friday March 10 2017, @04:19PM (3 children)
Pssst! Hey, buddy! Hate to be the one to break it to you, but you just might want to take a glance at the story's "from the ... dept." line.
Wit is intellect, dancing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @07:41PM (1 child)
He is probably jewish. Cunning, but not very smart.
Or he could be a bot.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday March 10 2017, @08:37PM
HEY
Account abandoned.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 11 2017, @06:56AM
No, it's "Lawyer lawyer, pants on fire"
(Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @01:51PM
Wasn't he just called home?
(Score: 5, Funny) by Pino P on Friday March 10 2017, @02:45PM (1 child)
What's next? A lawyer's nose growing longer in the courtroom?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday March 10 2017, @05:51PM
To avoid that risk, lawyers have decided to embrace modern methods and tweet their closing arguments...
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @02:55PM (1 child)
Man, I was needing a laugh today, thank you!
We need more of these absurd stories here on SN!
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday March 10 2017, @06:08PM
> We need more of these absurd stories here on SN!
I gather you missed the systemd saga.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @03:20PM
Did his arse also catch fire? That would have doubled the irony.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MrGuy on Friday March 10 2017, @03:26PM
I'm fairly sure we're going to see an appeal based on the notion that the jury seeing your lawyer's pants literally catch fire would damage said lawyer's credibility.
Whether they argue it as "undue prejudice" or "ineffective counsel" will be an interesting choice...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Friday March 10 2017, @03:46PM (5 children)
I believe him. It was a staged defence demonstration gone exactly as planned. Although not with the intended impact on the trial.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 4, Interesting) by MrGuy on Friday March 10 2017, @05:31PM (2 children)
...
So, the case was specifically about a fire, and specifically about whether a fire was intentionally set or not. The defense apparently was advancing a theory of the case that the fire had happened spontaneously.
It would be a heck of a coincidence that the only time this happened in a courtroom would be during closing arguments of a case that turns specifically on the question of whether fires can start without being deliberately set.
Emphasis mine.
It's the "several" that seems damning here. Is it possible that a damaged battery could start a fire in a device designed to generate heat? Sure it is - there have been several news stories about this potential danger. But a single person in possession of MULTIPLE damaged batteries? Who carries multiple batteries? Maybe a single spare, and in that case I'd hope it's a new one. Having several that "just happen" to be damaged in a way that can specifically start a fire seems more than a bit pat.
He might not have specifically intended the start the fire in his pants (It would take a lot more than the stakes here for ME to start a fire in that particular area....). But it seems to strain credulity that he wasn't planning to start a fire SOMEWHERE during closing arguments.
My purely speculative guess - he was planning to subtly put the previously disconnected damaged battery back in the vaporizer in his pocket to "arm" his incendiary device (so it wouldn't go off before he was ready), with the expectation he'd pull the vaporizer out of his pocket and place it on a pile of paper or his briefcase before launching into his argument, in the hope that the fire would start behind him, untouched by human hands. Unfortunately for him, his device worked too well, and it didn't wait for him to get it out of his pocket before it burst into flames.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday March 10 2017, @08:46PM
I'm pretty sure if one battery gets damaged (catches on fire), everything else in your pocket will also get damaged. Especially batteries.
(just throwing this lawyer a bone here)
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 10 2017, @09:29PM
Or more likely, just an eventuality. I'd imagine that many defense attorneys claim accident when their client is on trial for arson.
(Score: 2) by Bot on Friday March 10 2017, @06:13PM
If he only knew, he'd have played this [youtube.com] in the background too.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by ACE209 on Friday March 10 2017, @06:28PM
Or his client wasn't statisfied with his work.
(Score: 4, Funny) by stretch611 on Friday March 10 2017, @07:31PM
Let's hope this does not start a trend. If a fire starts every time a lawyer lies, the fire department will need to close down every courtroom across the nation.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 2) by snufu on Saturday March 11 2017, @12:10AM
you are not allowed to shout "Lawyer!" in a crowded theater.