What Is Judge Patrick's Decision in the Movie Gone Baby Gone
She asks if he's ever treated a tibula fracture (the leg bones are tibia and fibula) to which he just answers "no" then she starts grilling him with questions about the tibula. Later on almost vi-7 questions she asks "how did you go a medical license and have been able to practise medicine this long if you've never treated a tibula fracture?" And begins a small rant about going later on his credentials and those that gave it to him, to which he but responds "at that place is no bone named the tibula". The lawyer became beet red and everyone in the room tried their all-time to go along from laughing including the estimate.
Sat in on a personal injury case where the plaintiff broke their leg in a [collision] and had a doctor on the stand as an expert. The woman'southward lawyer begins questioning the dr. well-nigh their feel with leg injuries (he was a well known orthopedic surgeon in the surface area).
I'm not a lawyer but I was a character witness for my childhood dog in a civil trial betwixt our neighbors and my parents. Opposing counsel was questioning me, I wasn't even out of elementary school at the fourth dimension, and he asked if our domestic dog was ambitious. She was a rottweiler and very loving and incredibly protective of me and my siblings. His final question to me is ane I volition never forget. He asked "Did your begetter tell you what to say earlier yous came into court today?" I responded "Yep." Then he asked "What did he tell you lot to say?" I said "The truth." Now I was too young to retrieve the court reaction, just according to my begetter the judge audibly guffawed and the opposing counsel lost all the wind out of his sails.
Existence new, I filled out the plea class wrong swapping the counts she was charged with for the counts she was pleading to. Information technology's an easy error to make. Every court has their own unique class and I was unfamiliar with San Mateo'south. The gauge calls my line, starts reading off the plea form, notices the fault and so starts screaming at the pinnacle of his lungs "COUNSEL! WHAT IS THIS?! WHAT IS THIS?! IS THIS YOUR Get-go DAY ON THE Chore? THIS IS A COURT IF Constabulary AND WE DO Non Accept MISTAKES! Fill up THIS PLEA FORM OIT CORRECTLY OR I Will HAVE You TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FOR CONTEMPT!" I did non look a reaction like that. My client, who had clearly just taken a huge [rip] at 8 AM and who was wearing an all-pink velvet track suit was looking at me like I was the biggest idiot in the globe. I corrected the plea form. The gauge made me wait until the very end of the calendar to have my plea. Afterward, he called me up to the bench. In private he told me, "Sorry to ream you lot like that. Everyone messes the plea form upward then I always choice the youngest lawyer to yell at. The older guys will grumble and complain, but if you noticed they all stock-still their own forms and we didn't have any more bug. Keeps the calendar running smooth. Where did you lot go to law school?" After that he invited me into his office for coffee and gave me some really adept life/work advice. Turns out he likes talking to new lawyers.
I was a baby lawyer in my first twelvemonth representing the xix year old kid of some rich people in San Mateo County CA. My client had gone on a bit of a shoplifting spree and we were cleaning all her cases up with a global plea (meaning nosotros handled them all at once).
Got called for jury duty. Was at the jury selection phase, and they asked if "anyone hither thinks they should non..." blah blah. Defendant was in the room. I raised my paw. The defending lawyer looked at me like "oh this oughta be good" and asked me to explicate. I suggested I tell them in private. He insisted I tell the courtroom. I said: "OK...I probably shouldn't exist on this jury because I was on a previous jury for this man which returned a guilty verdict". Lawyer's face went "oh sh*t".
I think this qualifies, though it wasn't me that was the lawyer.
Commotion and a wait while they looked upwardly records. Aye; verified. Whole jury was now "tainted."
Everyone goes home, and they start over.
Not me but my former law partner. She was in courtroom representing a client, I remember in a hearing for a protective society against her soon-to-be-ex-husband. Our client was telling the judge that when they met to exchange the children for visitation, the ex had kicked her. He immediately angrily shouted "she can't prove it, I didn't leave a mark!" Thank you, buddy!
My rep: and so you lot terminated him because he was ill Employer: aye MR: and he was ill because he'southward disabled Employer: yeah MR: so you fired someone for beingness disabled Employer: yes
Not in court but at a tribunal, and also I was plaintiff, suing for wrongful termination.
The "oh sh*t" moment came during cross-test. Defence force counsel pulls out a picture of my client dressed up and ready to hit the club which was posted to Facebook the day later on the declared [incident]. I, thinking apace, object because the timestamp refers to when it was posted, not when information technology was taken. Defence counsel show the picture to my client and asked her when the pic was taken. Certain enough, they say it was taken the solar day afterwards the [incident] when she was supposedly in unbearable pain.
I was representing a plaintiff in a hit and run case. Plaintiff is testifying and is, despite me preparing them for several hours the previous day, an admittedly terrible witness for her ain case. Similar, she couldn't even place the street she was crossing when she was hit by the motorcar. (It was a major highway and nosotros had gone through the sequence of events countless times the mean solar day before the hearing)
Story from a friend of mine - he was defending a guy in court, don't call up what he was charged with. The main witness for prosecution was on the stand up, and was asked if she could identify the defendent. She was scanning the courtroom & seemed confused - my friend was already silently celebrating because if she couldn't identify him, he could probably go all charged dropped. Every bit he was mentally adding this case to the 'win' file, he happened to glance over at his client, who had just helpfully raised his hand to make it easier for her to place him. Even the guess facepalmed on that one.
Reposting myself from years ago:
Had a long meeting with client. Explained everything. Client was excited. Day of the preliminary hearing, guy shows up and sits down directly in front of the officer who detained him... ... while wearing the jacket in question, the exact same jacket we were going to say they couldn't prove belonged to him.
Literally the first thing I always did, was simply a law educatee intern. Guy has a legit defense on a drug possession case. Hard substances establish in a jacket, guy wasn't wearing jacket, they were going to accept a very hard time proving the jacket belonged to my guy.
She had to defend a small time runaway every bit duty solicitor. Before going to court he asked her what he should do; she explained to him if he was cooperative and true his judgement would be milder. Later hearing the case the approximate asked him if he wanted to add something. He got upwardly and explained to the judge: "my counsel told me to exist truthful, and so I wanted to tell you that I not only did the pilfering I'm being heard for only likewise several others in the region". He continued to admit to several robberies that had been unsolved nonetheless and everyone, even the country attorney were facepalming.
Not mine but my bosses ane:
Worked every bit a clerk at the local court later law school. In that location was this case nearly sending a 15 year quondam girl to a rehab/youth habitation since she had problems with alcohol. This girl had a backstory that fabricated the story of the girl from "13 reasons why" look similar a fairytale. Her parents had basically dumped her and her brother and left to live in another country, then they were called over Skype. So basically the girl had an attorney, the parents had an chaser and the state was represented past two attorneys. After reading her file I thought that no human existence tin exist normal afterwards the southward**t she's been through, that she'd exist a tranquillity, cleaved down girl during the whole trial. Boy was I wrong. She didn't even need an attorney, she basically out-argumented her parents attorney and the state chaser her self. I remember how awed I was of her strength and energy, simply I also felt sorry that I knew what she had to go through to get this forcefulness. I always retrieve back to that instance, I really hope she'due south doing fine now.
Not a lawyer, but I got in enough trouble in my teens to know what a judge does/doesn't like. Uncles/male parent decide they're going to conserve my grandmother and put her in a secured perimeter retentivity facility. In reality, they just wanted to piss abroad her $20m estate. We terminate up in court with our lawyers. I thing I know almost nigh judges/courtrooms. They want to exist revered like a church. No talk back, no talking out of turn, clothing a suit, fifty-fifty if information technology'southward a $20 goodwill suit. Father, uncles all prove up. All of them spend virtually an hour badmouthing me. I'1000 keeping my oral cavity shut, looking at my feet. Ane of my uncles tries to examine me, I just keep my mouth shut until the judge tells him he's not a lawyer, and I'm non examination. None of them are well dressed, sneakers, dirty sweatpants. My uncle (who's the ringleader) decides to showtime talking over his ain lawyers. My lawyer makes some comment, the judge starts talking to her and my uncles lawyer says something like, "Now hold on ladies!" All they had to do was proceed their mouths shut, and not tell their lawyers how to exercise their chore and they would accept won. They pretty much handed grandma and I the win.
After the fifth time my ex interrupted the judge with her nonsense, the judge slammed her hands down, stood up, leaned over her bench, and told my ex that she had been a juvenile court judge for twenty years and was well aware of the statutes. If she interrupted one more than fourth dimension then she would be held in contempt and spend several months more in jail. My lawyer held upwards his folder in front of his face to hide his grin during this commutation. I walked out with total legal and concrete custody of my daughter, court supervised visitation for my ex, and a full restraining order.
Not a lawyer, but I witnessed my ex married woman effort to fence with the guess that she couldn't exist accused of kidnapping our daughter because our daughter was legally emancipated (not a spoiler: she wasn't) at the time of the kidnapping. My ex had legal statutes written on small sheets of paper she had torn out of books in the jail library, and she kept arguing with the judge subsequently beingness told that none of it mattered.
Anyway, he'southward droning on almost every piffling item and the magistrate was constantly telling him to hurry along. The arresting officeholder was getting noticeably annoyed and the room became empty pretty quick. Everyone was very bored and annoyed. He was droning nigh details that I'm not sure anyone was really listening to or cared about. Anyway, he went over [capture] times and the likes with the officer, time he admitted the suspect and released him. He had bored the officer to the point were he was barely paying attending. "So he was admitted in at 21:45 on the night in question...?" "Yes" "...and released the night afterwards..." "yes" "...and that was what? Just after 10pm?..." "yes" "What time after 10?" "I don't know, quarter past ten maybe" "so my client was detained for more than than 24 hours" "erm...wait" The penny dropped. The officeholder let his guard downwardly and had revealed he kept the defendant for more than than 24 hours, which is the max time for detention in the U.k.. The defence rested and the magistrate threw the case out immediately. Well played sir, well played.
Britain - Bear with me on this ane. I was in court listening to the nearly boring old defence lawyer you've always seen, he was questioning the arresting officer in the case. Information technology was [difficult substances] or something similar that.
I was involved in a pretty messy custody example. The other party was a mess and had kept the child from my customer for a few weeks. OP was playing lots of stupid games and kept requesting continuances. I requested a drug test, which the gauge ordered. However, the OP didn't show up for information technology (to clarify, he did evidence up, he just stood in front of the toilet for literally 2 hours and claimed he couldn't pee). I was representing the plaintiff so the burden was on me. I called multiple witnesses that testified to the defendant's drug use. So, opposing counsel decides to call their customer for direct examination and asks, "y'all don't use heroin and fissure, right?" That is, for the not-lawyers, a very stupid question for many reasons. Especially considering his client didn't bear witness up for his drug exam. However, I fully expected the defendant to but lie and say he was clean. After the question was asked, there was a really long pause and the defendant said, "yes, I do both of those drugs." My caput almost exploded. I didn't inquire any questions on cross examination because I didn't want to muddy the waters. I won, and the child is doing great.
The judge stopped himself, and revoked the man'southward bail.
Sat in the public gallery at a bail hearing for a human accused of heinous crimes against a very, very young female person relative. The guess started laying out the conditions of bond and one of them was to surrender his passport. Human turned to his attorney and said, loudly, words to the issue of; "But you said I could fly dorsum to my dwelling house country..."
Not a lawyer but I had a big "Oh s**t" moment. I was in court for driving while suspended in a county and in front of a guess that were both notorious for putting people who did that in jail. My license wasnt supposed to exist suspended, a pencil pusher forgot to press a button or something and information technology never got un-suspended later on the fourth dimension was up. I had proof of this, only I was however really nervous. The guy who went up to the gauge before me walked to the table where we were supposed to stand, sat down, and put his feet upwardly on the table. The judge asked him what he was doing and he gave a flippant answer and basically told the estimate to go f**ked. This seriously pissed the judge off. The judge went off on this guy and the guy gave everything right back to him, pissing him off more and more. The estimate ended up jailing him for contempt and had the bailiff cuff the guy and put him in a chair off to the side to await the marshalls who would transport him to the jail. My proper name gets called. The judge is looking at me similar Im fresh meat and he is a Great White shark. Im already thinking to myself "OK, if this guess puts you in jail, run over and beat the s**t out of the guy that pissed the judge off so desperately. He's why youre going to jail." The estimate looks down at his paperwork and back at me and says "You're Mr my final proper name"? I said "Aye sir." He said "Yeah, we were talking about you earlier, Im going to void your arrest and dismiss this example, your license was supposed to be valid and y'all shouldnt be here." I let out a huge sigh. The judge asked me if I was OK and I said I had been a bit worried, especially given the guy that was right earlier me in line. The gauge said "Dont worry about him, he wont be seeing anything that isnt behind confined for about 90 days." and laughed.
A guy was convicted of attempting to murder several law officers. At his sentencing, the prosecutor revealed the defendant got a prison tattoo while he was awaiting sentencing of a tombstone with the names of all the cops he attempted to impale. Just the defendant still had the audacity to beg for a lenient judgement. He got a few hundred years in jail.
I'm not an attorney, but a reporter whose beat is the county courthouse, and then I've had enough of these moments happen in front of me.
We're sitting at the defendant'south table and the officeholder is testifying well-nigh the statements my guy fabricated to him, including some pretty horrific name calling. Out of nowhere, my customer screams "You're a f*cking liar! F*ck you, you son of a b*tch!!!" Nosotros lost that trial. Some other time, the judge asked a client whether anyone had coerced him into pleading guilty, and he said "Yeah, my attorney." I about sh*t my pants, but he laughed and said, "I'g joking. No."
Person I was representing was on trial for Assault in the Third Caste and DUI. In my state, A3 means y'all've assaulted an assistance worker or police officer and is a felony. The allegations are that he was very verbally offensive to the officers and, at one point, kicked i in the face.
Step-parent adoption I was handling in law school. I was appearing before the court on a motion--literally just submitting a written brief and summing up my argument and so the judge could think about information technology in chambers for a few weeks--when the judge stopped me halfway through my caption of the motility, said "I'one thousand ready to sign the final guild," and executed it right there at the bench. The client happened to come along for this 1, and broke downwardly (happy) crying earlier we left the courtroom. I felt ten feet tall.
A lawyer I used to know was in courtroom on a work injury case. The estimate asked his client "Just what is the nature of your injury?". His client replied "I tin can't raise my arm this high whatever more", while she raised her arm up to prove just how high she couldn't raise it.
So the lawyers are request u.s. questions and if that question applied to y'all, you raised your hand and they handed you a microphone to reply the question. The question asked was "Do you lot or anyone you know have prior knowledge of this instance?" So this older admirer raised his manus, is handed the mic, and proceeds to say "Yeah I work at the police station as a janitor, and I heard two detectives talking about him points to defendant and they were saying he was about as guilty as sin." We all kind of stared open-mouthed at this guy, and I started chuckling considering I couldn't believe what I was seeing!! Naturally, the defense attorney asked to approach the bench followed quickly the past the state prosecutor. After some quick and energetic whispering, the judge addressed the man. "Practise you lot realize what y'all simply did. You potentially tainted this unabridged jury puddle. I volition be calling your boss and you lot will be hearing about this. Y'all can count on that. You are dismissed sir, simply this isn't over." The man was escorted out and and then the judge addressed the remaining jury pool which was still in a mostly packed room. "Now I want you all to disregard what that human just said. I'm sure if any of you were always accused of a offense like this yous would desire a fair trial, and not be condemned based on the words of one old man." I accept been in court many times since, but never have I seen that level of downright jaw-dropping absurdity again.
Mine actually happened while I was sitting in the jury pool during vior dire. The instance was a double homicide, and the jury pool filled the entire courtroom. If yous're not familiar with vior dire it is when the lawyers enquire the potential jurors questions to decide who they want to sit on the jury and who they want to exclude. Information technology is a long and tiresome process for well-nigh everyone involved, but ix/10 information technology's the about important stage in a instance.
During some other hearing in which he did some other dumb move, judge says "I'm glad you are the last example on the phone call, and all of the other attorneys accept left the room, then they aren't here to hear me say that you are a terrible attorney."
Opposing counsel was a nightmare. Everything late, his work was extremely subpar, and then forth. Accused me of lying multiple times when he had dropped the ball.
At the cease of the trial, the gauge ruled for me and stated that she found the defendant'due south testimony to exist untrustworthy. I was shocked at winning a antipathy trial to begin with, just then this exchange happened: Defendent'due south attorney: "Your honor, now that you lot have found my client'southward testimony to be untrustworthy, I am requesting a continuance in gild to prepare farther witnesses." (This concept is shocking in an of itself, considering to fifty-fifty think you tin bring more witnesses later on y'all rest your example is laughable) Guess: "You had your shot and you missed, counsel." Accused'south chaser: "Your honor, in that location was no style I could have anticipated that you'd find my customer'southward testimony untrustworthy and every bit such, I didn't have the opportunity to set other witnesses in back up of his position". Judge: "That may be an statement for your carrier, counsel, but information technology holds no water with me. Come across you this afternoon for sentencing." For those who didn't pick upward on it, the guess basically told the lawyer ON THE RECORD IN FRONT OF HIS Customer that she expects him to get sued for malpractice considering he f**ked upwardly and then royally. That south**t was mindblowning on multiple levels.
I was prosecuting a contempt action in family courtroom (something that basically never works) and anybody in the room could tell I was winning. The other side was unprepared (out of arrogance) and I was basically ripping this guy to shreds on cross exam (which his lawyer didn't even think would happen, because he expected the example to be dismissed.)
Not exactly in court. But I was defending a juvenile robbery example, where there was very little bear witness. There was supposed to exist ii guys, but they only picked up this one child, he had no stolen property on him, he was picked upwards like outside his ain house, wearing different clothes than the victim had initially said. This kid was on the honor roll at school, his family seemed kind and were involved, he wrote poesy and played instruments. I actually believed information technology was a legit mistaken identity instance. I went to meet with one of the child'south mentors for a grapheme reference.... and he exactly matched the description of the other robber.
I'm not a lawyer but a court case I was involved with went this way. My ex-MIL was a crazy b****. Me and my wife at the time had cut her off virtually completely. Every one in a whole she would requite in and permit her mom visit, which always turned out badly. Eventually we got divorced and I got full custody. MIL went nuts and decided to sue me for custody. I looked over the law and for any grade of visitation or custody you demand to accept had contact in the last 6 months and she hadn't seen them for over a yr. And so we go to court. I can't afford a lawyer but the law was pretty clear. She goes through three lawyers, each of them quit in turn. So she finally winds up representing herself. During the final hearing she was talking to the approximate and said something to the result of "I don't want to get custody of them, I just want to be able to visit". The judge then asked her bespeak blank "this is a custody hearing. Are y'all telling me you no longer desire to get custody?" She said yes and the approximate dismissed the example immediately.
It was going forth fine, until my lawyer put up a photograph of the pothole, taken the solar day of the incident, filled to the skirt with water, after a recent rain. He asked the lady if she had gotten her foot wet, to which she replied that she couldn't call up. He talked a picayune more nearly how perchance if her pes wasn't wet, information technology might take been considering she fell out of the truck and didn't really autumn into the pothole. He asked again if her foot was wet, and she affirmed that yep, her foot was wet. The "oh s**t" moment came when he went back to his desk-bound, flipped through her deposition and read the role where she was extremely adamant that her pes wasn't moisture. So he did some fancy legal stuff, the case was thrown out and I went back to work.
I was the defendant, representing a nonprofit that I volunteered for. The plaintiff was a lx something Grandma who was looking for a retirement settlement subsequently falling out of her jacked up pick up truck in our parking lot. The premise of her case was that our parking lot was in bad shape (it was) and that she fell into a pothole and broke her leg, which resulted in her having to take Coumadin and macerated her enjoyment of salads at the Friday night fish fry (no, really).
Never ask a question to which you don't know the respond. Prosecutor suggested to me client that the canned goods he had burgled were to be used to trade for drugs. Me thinking the thought ludicrous asked my customer whether he has ever traded food for drugs. To which he replied that he once exchanged a frozen chicken for heroin. Needless to say, I didn't win that one.
Accused yells out " see that proves that I didn't [slay] him, I only [hit] the mother f**ker twice."
When I was in college, I was a bailiff. Guy is on trial for murder. First witness testified that she saw the defendant shoot the [target]. Second witness states the same. Police officeholder testimony is that he arrived at the scene and defendant was at that place holding the [slice]. Medical examiner testimony is that the first bullet hitting the [target] in the arm, the second bullet striking the [target] in the torso and the third bullet hit the [target] in the heart which was the fatal [accident].
My judge was an incredibly even-keel guy. Nothing shook him or got a rise out of him, and he was an expert at figuring out what he wanted to say in the most neutral fashion possible before he said information technology (conversations with him took forever because at that place was a pause before every judgement). Only then. BUT THEN. This guy [sickens] an entire jury pool of 75 people. Nosotros had to individually question each person to encounter if that little flare-up was going to bear on their impartiality, etc. 75 in camera interviews after, approximate pulls the guy back in in front of everybody and begins to SCREAM at him most disrespecting him, the courts, and every other juror'due south time. Me, the attorneys, and the courtroom reporter go white faced because we didn't know this was coming. The guy didn't accept to sit for jury duty, merely I however don't know if he got to option his kids up, since he spent a couple days in jail for contempt.
I was interning for a gauge, we were in the middle of voir dire, for what was bluntly not that exciting of a instance--one-half day trial expected, not salacious details or harshness or anything. 75 potential jurors in the room, and when my guess didn't let a guy out of jury duty "considering he'd have to pick upward his kids" that guy proceeded to say in front of everyone that if he was made to show up next week he'd get in the shortest trial e'er and find him guilty right out of the gate.
The barrister starts to make our case, and I am taking notes most areas we demand to further explore when I hear "Alibi ME, WHY WERE Y'all SO RUUUUUUDE TO ME?" The client, who had been told to NOT Come up, had come to court that twenty-four hours and was evidently incensed past the guess questioning the merit of their case. They berated the judge for about 3 minutes, with me and my cocounsel start stunned and so trying to close them up, earlier he adjourned the hearing. The case did non go very well, to my customer'due south surprise and fury. Big sigh.
Was in courtroom for a directions hearing. The guess was already in a bad mood and asked why we were hither for such a seemingly pointless litigation (without giving details, he was right.)
He freaks out, the oversupply (some in the gallery were his family and friends) gasps. The judge basically stops me and says "I think you mean 30 days counselor..." Afterwards which everyone, including the defendant, laughed at me...
I was interning during law school prosecuting domestic violence cases. The Deputy DA asked me to talk for the offset time during a guy's arraignment, for beating his wife. An arraignment is when the Defendant hears the charges against them and pleads guilty or non guilty basically. When the judge calls on me to speak, I got insanely nervous. And told the Accused that his charge carried a maximum penalty of thirty YEARS, when it was actually thirty DAYS.
So, during his testimony, I ask "Detective Smith, you had a romantic relationship with Ms. Defendant, correct?" He goes "What? No!" and is visibly offended. The gauge Iooks at me like I've lost my mind, the republic attorney audibly says "what?", I'1000 freaking out because a large function of my cross and argument was focused on the bias formed by the prior human relationship, and now I've got nothing and I've lost all credibility. I endeavor again, "Detective Smith, have yous had a sexual relationship with Ms. Defendant?". As the Commonwealth rises to object and the Gauge starts to scold me, the detective goes "Oh, yea. We've had [relations], it just wasn't very...romantic." Edit/Update: State is Virginia. The jury acquitted my client of the relatively minor charge that the detective in my story was involved with, but convicted of the other, much more than serious charges that detective had zilch to practise with. There was a confession and video on the serious charges, so it was kind of a no-brainer. Lamentable I'thou beingness kind of intentionally vague, there are no confidentiality concerns (since this all happened in open courtroom), but its distasteful to give out as well much data about a client. The detective was not "disqualified", his testimony was not thrown out. Impeachment, no thing how good, doesn't upshot in you getting to throw out a witness'south testimony entirely. By the way, it wasn't actually the [relations] that was the issue, it was that he didn't disclose information technology to anyone and his repeated insistence under questioning that he didn't disembalm it because information technology was irrelevant. Like Watergate, its not the [incident], its the coverup that gets yous. Only I don't become to demand the guess throw out the testimony or that charge simply because the cop failed to disclose a prior relationship with the accused. I simply get to betoken it out, argue it in closing, and then hope the jury also sees the relevance.
Represented a woman charged with multiple very serious felonies. She insisted that in the months before the offense, she'd been seriously dating one of the detectives who ultimately wound up investigating and testifying in her example. For a variety of reasons, I trusted this client and believed her, even though the detective never disclosed the relationship in his report.
Annotation: this post originally had 97 images. It's been shortened to the top 35 images based on user votes.
jeffersonfroys1972.blogspot.com
Source: https://www.boredpanda.com/lawyers-share-wild-court-stories/
0 Response to "What Is Judge Patrick's Decision in the Movie Gone Baby Gone"
Post a Comment