Judge Excludes Manny Ramirez Defense

Earlier, today, in a big blow to public defender Walker Milford, Los Angeles Superior Court judge Aaron Appleton refused to instruct the jury on what has been labeled the "Manny Being Manny" defense. This ruling is the latest setback for attorneys around the country who have been trying to introduce a new defense based on the 12-time All Star. Attorneys have been arguing for the following jury instruction: if a defendant’s actions can be described as "Manny Being Manny," he or she should not be found guilty. Unfortunately for Milford, who wore dreadlocks to today’s court appearance in honor of the slugger, his appeal to Judge Appleton fell flat.

"Your honor 'Manny Being Manny' is just a way of saying that the rules can’t be applied in the same way to everyone," argued Milford. "'Manny Being Manny' means that you can be horrible at one thing in your life, like fielding or obeying the law, but be great in other areas like hitting or working the night shift. It means that you don’t have to always try your hardest to be successful and it certainly means that drug policies aren’t always clear to everyone."

In response, prosecutor Lorraine Evers was incredulous. "The last time I checked, 'Manny Being Manny' means getting your arse handed to you by the Philadelphia Phillies. It also means taking a shower while your team is trying to close out game four of the National League Championship series or faking a knee injury if you don’t really feel like playing. In other words, it means not caring and that’s exactly what the defendant in this case can ill afford to continue to do."

Judge Appleton quickly dismissed the proposed instruction. "Mr. Milford, this is the most ridiculous thing I have heard since somebody tried to convince me that Michael Jackson was healthy when he died. While I agree that the notion of 'Manny Being Manny' has become ingrained in popular culture, it has no place in my courtroom. I mean you have access to the insanity defense Mr. Milford, doesn’t that make your proposed line of argument unnecessary?"