A footnote I never thought I would see in a Supreme Court decision
I give you this without commentary, because it must be savored without any accoutrements….
Golds” are permanent or removable mouth jewelry, also referred to as “grills.” See Mouth Jewelry Wearers Love Gleam of the Grill, South Florida Sun-Sentinel, Feb. 4, 2007, p. 5, 2007 WLNR 2187080. See also A. Westbrook, Hip Hoptionary 59 (2002) (defining a “grill” as a “teeth cover, usually made of gold and diamonds”).
I will say, however, that a “Hip Hoptionary” site before a TAH linking by Justice Thomas makes me a sad panda.
Category: Politics
New software suite for official business:
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-XNftXHW7qHg/Te4odmCrmEI/AAAAAAAABXw/MAQGVByFL3Y/s1600/microsoft_word_write_letterz_n_.jpeg
That’s pretty funny CI.
I’s not be knowin’… Why for you be postin’ dat?
http://www.joel.net/EBONICS/
Marble, that’s the funniest site I’ve seen in months.
Yo, wassup?
Dat Foots notes shit be fo shizzle.
Dats da shiznatch ma biznatch!
What would really be a horror is if such terms were used in a decision without footnotes explaining them! The dissent by Justice Thomas was his disagreeing with the majority which directed that a convicted murderer be retried. I would also add, since I am a fan –but not a homey–of Thomas, that there is another footnote in his dissenting opinion:
9See 2 Dictionary of American Regional English 1064–1065, 1069 (F.Cassidy & J. Hall eds. 1991) (defining “Home” as “a term of address used by two black people either from the same Southern state or simplyfrom the South,” similar to “homey” or “home boy”); 2 Green’s Dictionary of Slang 828 (2010) (defining “home,” an abbreviation of homeboy,as “a friend, often used in direct address”); Concise New PartridgeDictionary of Slang and Unconventional English (T. Dalzell & T. Victor eds. 2008) (defining “home” as “a very close male friend,” an abbreviation of “Homeboy”).
@1 CI: Nice one. That is too funny.
I love Thomas, but not sure I agree with him on this dissent. I think this one is close, but any hint of impropriety with regard to exculpatory evidence like this, I would have to go with defendant. I didn’t read the whole thing, but kind of scanned.
I think this guy probably did the deed as it were, but I am just not comfortable with them not turning over this evidence. And this isn’t the first time that this issue has come up down in NO.
Gotta agree, TSO. The last sentence of the second paragraph sums it up nicely, “the eyewitnesses statements were plainly material and the State’s failure to disclose those statements to the defense thus violated Brady.
I’m still amazed at the mindset of a prosecutor or detective that feels that it’s OK to leave shit out, or lie, much like I’m amazed that a defense attorney feels it’s necessary to suborn perjury. There isn’t a defendant in jail, prison or on trial that’s worth that.