ebster's defines "chutzpah" as self-confidence, nerve or gall.
Or, to use it in a sentence: "The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals certainly has a lot of chutzpah," Justice Sandra Day O'Connor said.
A good argument can be made that the 9th Circuit, more than any other court in the nation, is the chutzpah court.
But, the court noted in an opinion Thursday it has not had the chance itself to weigh in on the emerging legal doctrine of chutzpah. Now it has.
It happened in United States v. Sar-Avi, 01 C.D.O.S. 5671, and when the facts are set forth, one can see why that particular word pops to mind.
In 1986, Dror Sar-Avi, a dual citizen of Israel and the United States, established several bank accounts which he used as collateral to obtain a line of credit from casinos in Nevada and Atlantic City, N.J.
Unfortunately, he was not a successful gambler. But when the casinos went to collect their markers from the banks, Sar-Avi had made like Woody Allen: He took the money and ran.
Ensconced in Israel, Sar-Avi incredibly decided to gamble again and returned to the United States to give a deposition in a case he'd filed against an insurance company. He was arrested and charged with four counts of wire fraud in connection with $58,000 in gambling debts.
A magistrate set bond at $100,000, Sar-Avi paid $10,000 in cash, pleaded guilty to the charges and promised to appear for sentencing.
Instead, he went back to Israel, a move which, in the words of Judge Sidney Thomas, "left the government with $10,000 in hand and a $90,000 marker."
Later, Sar-Avi would argue that he did not willfully return to Israel, but suffered a heart attack necessitating a return to Israel for medical attention.
"On its face," Thomas noted, "that contention might startle the many fine cardiologists in the greater Los Angeles area, where his first plea was entered." A doctor here also found that Sar-Avi merely suffered stress-related chest pains.
Six years later, the government negotiated Sar-Avi's return to the United States. He pleaded guilty - again - and agreed to pay the $90,000. As part of the agreement, he waived his right to appeal any part of the judgment or sentence.
Any chutzpah in the story so far was a mere appetizer. Sar-Avi's next step was bold, and one the 9th Circuit agreed he had every right to take.
He moved the district court to remit the $90,000, pointing out that it was neither part of the judgment nor the sentence.
"Chutzpah is not an infrequent visitor to our court and may, in fact, have its place in the development of the law," Thomas wrote.
Sar-Avi's motion was civil, not criminal, in nature and nothing in his plea agreement prevented him from filing it, the court ruled. Nevertheless, the court held that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in denying the motion.
"Although chutzpah may occasionally play a salutary role in provoking creation of legal precedent, it rarely meets with a successful result," Thomas wrote.
"To date our court has only engaged in 'talk about chutzpah,' " he concluded. "We have not, as yet, adopted a 'chutzpah doctrine,' as the D.C. Circuit has ... nor joined the Federal Circuit in giving 'chutzpah awards' ... nor conducted a 'chutzpah championship,' as does the Federal Court of Claims.
"All we can say in our nascent consideration of chutzpah jurisprudence is that the wise judgment of the district court is affirmed."
