No, not the old television game show.....
Last week I was in general district court on a traffic day. Though I arrived early, the officer on my reckless driving case was late getting to court. Because he naturally did not return my phone messages, I had to ask the court to pass by the case while I confirmed his radar calibrations and spoke to the Commonwealth Attorney about the case. When I returned to my seat in front of the bar, the court was addressing cases involving minor traffic matters --- proof of insurance, expired tags etc.
The court calls a case, and a 30 something year old woman walks to the bench, charged with not having a current sate inspection. Normally, the court will dismiss the case if you show proof that you have obtained an inspection, and the inspection was not late by more than 3 months at the time of the offense. Without swearing her in, the judge asked the woman if she had obtained an inspection, to which she replied yes. As he was preparing to ask her another question, the judge realized he had not sworn the defendant in, so help her god, which he then proceeded to do. The judge then asked her again if she had obtained a current inspection, to which she replied -- NO!
For some reason I just found this to be amusing. It was as if the defendant had not even answered the question differently the first time. I suppose it is a positive commentary on society that some people do in fact believe in the sanctity of taking an oath to tell the truth -- even in matters as small as this one was. Perhaps what I found even more amusing was that the judge continued on without blinking, without even making mention of this lady's attempt to defraud the court. Had I been on the bench, I know fo a fact that I would have called her on the carpet for this type of insincerity.