From our friend and colleague Eightball, the redoubtable Dentist/Lawyer/Professional Student/Next Probably Some Sort of Accountant or Possibly Chemical Engineer, I learned of a thing of beauty — the first time I have seen a United States Court of Appeals discuss the meaning of the term "ho."

Murphy was the case. To be more specific, United States v. Murphy, 406 F.3d 857 (7th Cir. 2005). Murphy was convicted of witness tampering and other uncouth things and appealed his sentence and conviction.

In the course of reviewing the facts established at trial, the Court noted:

What, you might ask, was in FN1?

Words cannot express how this warms my heart. Does the Court mean it to be dry and serious? Does the Court recognize that discussing the term "ho" in a dry and serious legal voice is inherently funny? Either way.

But my curiosity was triggered, not slaked. Had our nation's federal courts of appeals previously defined "ho"? How long ago?

A Westlaw search for "ho" in the federal circuit courts triggered a flood of 1050 cases, most of them about persons of Asian descent or about regrettably abbreviated hearing officers. A refined search ("ho" /s (whore prostitute)) yielded more targeted cases.

The earliest discussion I find is in an unpublished 1993 disposition out of the Tenth Circuit, in a case in which a man protested being fired for calling a coworker a ho even though she was not fired for addressing him with a racial epithet. "Plaintiff admits that during this incident he called her a “degenerate ho,” i.e. a whore."

But Ken! you protest. That's an unpublished case, you can't rely on that to demonstrate whether and when our federal courts of appeal defined "ho!" Shut tha fuck up, I explain. I'm getting to that, beyotch.

An enterprising advocate might reference a 1994 Second Circuit decision which implied a definition by noting that an employee of a company accused of pervasive discrimination had addressed the plaintiff both as "whore" and "ho."

A more stolid and cautious advocate would no doubt wait to rely on Doe By and Through Doe v. Petaluma City School Dist.,
54 F.3d 1447 (9th Cir. 1995), in which the notorious Ninth Circuit noted a definition: "[t]he epithets such as “slut” and “ho” (slang for whore) . . . ." A wag might assert that the Ninth Circuit's endorsement of the definition undermines it, but that need not detain us.

But wait! you might interject again. What about published and unpublished district court opinions? What about the learned writings of the recently-graduated-from-law-school clerks of red-and-fleshy-faced large-firm partners placed on the bench by various Presidents and indifferent Senators? Step off, I say.

A search of the nation's published and unpublished district court opinions reveals nothing preceding Doe, above. Indeed, the record of our nation's proud district courts contains little to enlighten us about the life of the ho or, indeed, tha pimp. It does, however, demonstrate that the humble judges of the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri both read the Seventh Circuit's decisions and aspire to the same level of ho-related linguistic precision:

Roberts v. Cardinal Health, Not Reported in F.Supp.2d, 2006 WL 744270 (W.D.Mo.,2006).

Alas, my Westlaw account does not permit unmetered research into the legal annals of our several states, and I must now lay down my burden and let some other, better man take up the rest of this quest.

Last 5 posts by Ken

• Citizen Incredulity And Law Enforcement Reality - May 2nd, 2012
• Regarding The Obvious Dangers Of Anal Artillery - May 1st, 2012
• Debate Is Fine. Even Ridicule Is Fine. Threats Are Unacceptable. - April 27th, 2012
• Occasionally My Timing Is Less Than Optimal - April 26th, 2012
• How Not To Draft A Probable Cause Affidavit - April 13th, 2012