History Main / DisregardThatStatement

Note that this appears much more often in fiction. In real life, it's a good way to lose the right to practice law, never mind using it as a common tactic. Lawyers refer to this method as "ringing the bell", since you can't un-ring a bell. Because they aren't idiots, they realise people cannot "un-hear" things. Therefore this is not a clever or crafty way to get around rules governing prejudicial questions. Even ''one'' overly prejudicial question or statement can easily result in a successful appeal, as it's a safe assumption that it influenced the jury's decision on some level, and anyone who tries to pull it in court is going to find themselves on the business end of a benchslap from a pissed-off judge.

Note that this appears much more often in fiction. In the real world, it's a good way to lose the right to practice law, never mind using it as a common tactic. Lawyers refer to this method as "ringing the bell", because you can't un-ring a bell. Because they aren't idiots, they realise people cannot "un-hear" things. Therefore this is not a clever or crafty way to get around rules governing prejudicial questions. Even ''one'' overly prejudicial question or statement can easily result in a successful appeal, as it's a safe assumption that it influenced the jury's decision on some level, and anyone who tries to pull it in court is going to find themselves on the business end of a benchslap from a pissed-off judge.

->'''Vinny:''' Uh... Everything that guy just said is bullshit... Thank you.
->[...]
->'''Judge:''' The jury will kindly disregard the defendant's entire opening statement, with the exception of "Thank you."

* In ''WesternAnimation/TheSimpsons.''
** Parodied in "Bart the Murderer," where Bart's sentencing for Principal Skinner's murder is interrupted by ''Skinner himself'' dramatically bursting into the courtroom to declare Bart's innocence and tell the true story of how he had gone missing. Despite the entire case being instantly and wholly invalidated, the prosecution nevertheless [[RefugeInAudacity moves to have his testimony stricken from the record]]:
-->'''Judge:''' ''[[NoJustNoReaction DENIED!]]'' Case dismissed!

** In the episode "Duffless." Homer goes to court following a [=DUI=] arrest:
--> '''Judge:''' Your license is hereby revoked and you are to attend traffic school and two months of Alch-Anon meetings.
-->'''Homer:''' Your Honor, I'd like that last remark stricken from the record.
-->'''Judge:''' No.
* Parodied in ''WesternAnimation/{{Futurama}}'', where the jury (a DOOP war-crimes tribunal) were all witnesses (to the destruction of DOOP headquarters). The rival lawyer asks the jury to point out the person they saw committing the act, and are told by the judge to disregard their own statements.
* Hilariously parodied in ''WesternAnimation/BatmanTheAnimatedSeries'', where Batman is being held on trial by a JokerJury.
-->'''[[HelloAttorney Janet Van Dorn]]''': You could have respected [Alice's] wishes and left her alone.
--> '''Mad Hatter:''' ''[[{{Yandere}} I'd have killed her first]]''! Oop! I'd like that last statement stricken from the record please.
--> '''Judge Joker:''' Record? Is someone supposed to be writing this down?
* In ''WesternAnimation/StevenUniverse'', the Zircon assigned to defend Steven in Homeworld's court tries to use this after she ends her testimony by [[spoiler:basically [[AccuseTheWitness accusing the Diamonds of murder]] ''[[DidYouJustFlipOffCthulhu to their faces]].'' A pissed-off Yellow Diamond [[DoNotTauntCthulhu poofs her instead]]]].
* ''WesternAnimation/TheDickTracyShow'': In "Court Jester," Stooge Viller and Mumbles are on trial for forgery, only Stooge has escaped from the courtroom. He is needed because without him to translate Mumbles' mumbling, the case will be thrown out. He is eventually captured and brought back to the courthouse where Mumbles enters a plea and the judges orders Stooge to tell what he said. Stooge replies "He said we're guilty," then he gets an OhCrap look on his face.

Note that this appears much more often in fiction. In the real world, this is a good way to lose the right to practice law, never mind using it as a common tactic. Lawyers refer to this method as "ringing the bell", because you can't un-ring a bell. Because they aren't idiots, they realise people cannot "un-hear" things. Therefore this is not a clever or crafty way to get around rules governing prejudicial questions. Even ''one'' overly prejudicial question or statement can easily result in a successful appeal, as it's a safe assumption that it influenced the jury's decision on some level, and anyone who tries to pull it in court is going to find themselves on the business end of a benchslap from a pissed-off judge.

In the real world, this is a good way to lose the right to practice law, never mind using it as a common tactic. Lawyers refer to this method as "ringing the bell", because you can't un-ring a bell. Because they aren't idiots, they realise people cannot "un-hear" things. Therefore this is not a clever or crafty way to get around rules governing prejudicial questions. Even ''one'' overly prejudicial question or statement can easily result in a successful appeal, as it's a safe assumption that it influenced the jury's decision on some level, and anyone who tries to pull it in court is going to find themselves on the business end of a benchslap from a pissed-off judge.

In the real world, this is a good way to lose the right to practice law; never mind using it as a common tactic. Lawyers refer to this method as "ringing the bell", because you can't un-ring a bell. Because they aren't idiots, they realise people cannot "un-hear" things. Therefore this is not a clever or crafty way to get around rules governing prejudicial questions. Even ''one'' overly prejudicial question or statement can easily result in a successful appeal, as it's a safe assumption that it influenced the jury's decision on some level, and anyone who tries to pull it in court is going to find themselves on the business end of a benchslap from a pissed-off judge.

Naturally, the opposing lawyer [[ThatWasObjectionable will object]], and then the Judge will say, without fail; "The members of the jury are instructed to disregard that statement." Original lawyer smirks because apparently only he realizes that people cannot voluntarily self-induce amnesia through sheer willpower[[labelnote:*]]and we're talking amnesia in general, never mind [[LaserGuidedAmnesia the laser-guided kind]][[/labelnote]]. If he's ''really'' being smug, he'll withdraw the statement himself before the other lawyer can finish objecting.

In the real world, this is a good way to lose the right to practice law; never mind using it as a common tactic. Lawyers refer to this method as "ringing the bell", because you can't un-ring a bell. Even one overly prejudicial question or statement is likely to result in a successful appeal, as it's a safe assumption that it influenced the jury's decision on some level, and anyone who tries to pull it in court is going to find themselves on the business end of a benchslap from a pissed-off judge.

* PlayedForLaughs in ''[[https://www.fanfiction.net/s/8492352/1/This-Freaking-Case This Freaking Case]]'', when the defense succeeds in getting all the horrifically incriminating evidence (including a confession and video footage) suppressed on spurious grounds and Jack [=McCoy=] retaliates simply by showing it all to the jury anyway.

* Pulled at least once in the ''Franchise/AceAttorney'' games, when Franziska von Karma shows off an illegally acquired photograph, not as formal evidence (since that would ruin her Perfect Record, after all), but just to give the judge and audience something to think about.

A kind of CourtroomAntic where the lawyer asks or says something totally inappropriate to the rules of the courtroom in order to get the jury to think of something a certain way. A classic example is, [[ManyQuestionsFallacy "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"]]

* At least once on ''Series/{{Matlock}}'', after Matlock's CourtroomAntics, when the judge ordered the jury to disregard his statement. Matlock muttered under his breath, "Like hell they will."

* Frequently also on ''Series/{{JAG}}''.
* In ''Series/{{Bones}}'', the episode "The Girl in the Fridge" features a trial and how the evidence is perceived. Both Booth and Brennan's old professor, working for the other side, throw in personal commentary and opinions, shaping the jury's opinions, objected to by the lawyers, and the judge uses this statement liberally. But of course, can't change the jury's having heard their bias.