Legal cases mention chronic halitosis quite a bit, often to great comic effect
SUMMARY: You're a judge, and the case you're sitting on revolves around chronic halitosis. How could you NOT mention it in your legal decision?
Posted: December 28, 2011
Though it may seem glamorous and simple when portrayed on TV legal dramas, criminal law is often stultifyingly boring. This may explain why, when a legal case hinges on a defendant's having (or even mentioning) chronic halitosis, jurists seem unable to keep from mentioning it in the final decision.
Consider the case of Debra Miller and Ed Geaslin v. the L'Auberge du Lac Casno and Hotel, 2011. This exceedingly strange courtroom romp revolved around alcohol and insults.
According to the docket, after winning close to $30,000 gambling, Miller and Geaslin got tremendously drunk, apparently using Big Gulp cups to smuggle in illicit alcohol. At one point, Geaslin "admitted to being inebriated to the point that he requested that the casino bring him a wheelchair to bring him back to his room." A security guard then confronted the two.
In his own words, Gaeslin described the encounter in court: "He came up and stuck his face right in mine, big flaring nostrils, halitosis that would have gagged a buzzard, and I told him if he didn't want trouble to back off." (One imagines Gaeslin had chronic halitosis too, after downing so much alcohol.)
You can imagine what happened next. Security tackled the two, who later sued for damages.
Unsurprisingly, they lost.
Whether you have chronic halitosis or are remarking on someone else's, it may be a good idea to remain calm or even to tactfully suggest the use of a specialty breath freshener. That way, no feelings will be hurt and no allegations of bad breath recorded in court dockets for all to giggle over.