May 1966: The charges of indecent exposure, brought against 21-year-old Mary Lou Hood for mowing her lawn while wearing a bikini, were all dropped. The judge determined there was insufficient evidence of lewdness or indecent exposure to support the charges.
The case was said to be the hottest issue in the college town of Edmond, Ohlahoma "since canned beer." The judge delivered his decision to a standing-room-only crowd. The case also received widespread national media coverage even though, as Hood's lawyer noted, the case didn't actually establish a legal precedent for a right to wear a bikini while mowing the lawn.
Muncie Evening Press - May 20, 1966
Spokesman Review - May 20, 1966
Ogden Standard Examiner - May 20, 1966
Mary Lou Hood, with her husband, at the courthouse
May 20, 1966. Source.
When British dentist Philip Grundy died in 1974, he left the bulk of his estate, slightly over $400,000, to Amelia Whaite, the receptionist at his practice. But with some unusual conditions. He forbid her from wearing lipstick or makeup, or going out with any men, for five years.
$400,000 in 1974, adjusted for inflation, would be over $2,000,000 today. So a nice chunk of money.
However, Grunday also made Whaite the sole executor of his estate "with the responsibility to see the will's conditions are kept." So if she didn't follow the conditions was she supposed to self-report herself?
Atlanta Constitution - Mar 17, 1974
I found
a forum where residents of Leyland, Lancashire (where Grundy worked) recalled going to his practice. Seems that, in addition to the money, he left behind a lot of traumatized patients. Some typical comments:
There were two doors in the dentists room one in and one out, so no one ever saw the end result of his work I swear I've given birth twice and it didn't hurt as much as that butchers work on my mouth.
My worst horror story was when I had to have 2 teeth pulled and complained about the gas, Grundy did'nt bat an eyelid and promptly yanked them out without anything. I did'nt get a vote, and never complained again, I was 14 at the time.
GRUNDY'S! there was a trail of blood from the door, past the bus stop and round the corner; You couldn't get out of the waiting room once you were in as the door only opened inwards- some brave souls escaped when someone was entering, nearly knocking them over. Waiting room full of smoke and old copies of The Beano in yellowed celluloid covers; view of a sad square of lawn; anyone escaping by the usual way out had to go past, and be accosted by a Forbidding Receptionist.Some sort of liaison here, as Grundy left her all his money, on condition that she never wear lipstick!
Some more info about Grundy and Whaite from a 1974 Associated Press article:
In July 1962, a special dental court found Grundy and Miss Whaite guilty of conspiring to defraud the state-run National Health Service by charging unjustified fees. Both were fined.
Four years later, Grundy was accused of addiction to inhaling anesthetic gas and was forbidden to practice for five years.
He resumed his practice in 1971 and built it into a flourishing enterprise with a staff of 14. . .
Miss Whaite now runs the practice, still with a 14-member staff.
Grundy sounds like he was a real piece of work.
Source:
The Boston Globe (Boston, Massachusetts)04 Apr 1928, Wed Page 16
Two different legal cases offer guidance on when singing jurors are considered grounds for a new trial, and when they're not.
Details from the Virginia Law Register - April 1905.
WHEN THEY'RE NOT:
Where the jurors after retiring to consider of their verdict attempted to sing and one of them was unable to carry the "base," it is not ground for a new trial that a man who was not a member of the jury joined them and gave them "the proper air."
From the case
Collier v. State
WHEN THEY ARE:
It is a ground for a new trial that the jury in a murder case upon retiring went to a hotel, got drunk, and in coming up to their room in the hotel sang "We are climbing up the golden stairs."
From the case
State v Demareste La
This was legal???
Macon Chronicle-Herald - Sep 8, 1989
Apparently so. Some googling reveals that this situation seems to happen fairly regularly.
Most recently, there was the case of Judge Thomas Ensor of Colorado whose wife served as a juror in his court. During the trial the judge repeatedly cracked jokes about the presence of his wife, such as, "Be nice to Juror 25. My dinner is on the line."
Inevitably the case was appealed, but in June 2020 the Colorado Supreme Court ruled that it was legal for Ensor's wife to be on the jury, noting that the defense lawyer could have objected to her sitting as a juror, but didn't. (Though the defense lawyer had said that he was afraid to challenge her.)
More info:
ABA Journal
The ad below, in which trial lawyer Melvin Belli endorsed Glenfiddich scotch, ran in the
New York Times and
New York Magazine in early 1970. Taken at face value, it doesn't seem like a particularly noteworthy ad. However, it occupies a curious place in legal history.
Before the 1970s, it was illegal for lawyers to advertise their services. So when Belli appeared in this ad, the California State Bar decided he had run afoul of this law — even though he hadn't directly advertised his services. It suspended his license for a year. The California Supreme Court later lowered this to a 30-day suspension — but it didn't dismiss the punishment entirely.
Some high-placed judges felt sympathetic to Belli, which added fuel to the movement to end the 'no advertising' law for lawyers, and by 1977, the Supreme Court had struck down the ban on advertising, saying that it violated the First Amendment. That's why ads for legal services now appear all over the place. Compared to the ads one sees nowadays, Belli's scotch endorsement really seems like no big deal at all.
More info:
Belli v. State Bar,
"Remember when lawyers couldn't advertise?"
New York Magazine - Mar 2, 1970