"Ere he shall lose an eye for such a truffle. For doing deeds of nature. I'm ashamed. The law is an ass." English dramatist George Chapman, Revenge for Honour, (1654).
"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is an ass - an idiot." Charles Dickens, Oliver Twist, (1838).
There are very good reasons people sometimes distrust lawyers.
I recently commented on an article, posted on a web site called Powerline, about something that I found offensive. The situation was right out of Dickens, a bizarre bit of legal tartuffery. A blog writer proffered arguments that are clothed in the niceties of legal jargon, but devoid of any sense of human decency. A week or so ago, one of their feature writers warned against the use of profanity (ass apparently falling into that category, Dickens or not. My comment was removed), warning dismissal from the site and inviting people who don't like it to write their own blogs.
Your proposal is acceptable.
What could have caused such upset that I would risk eternal Powerline damnation? A trial began last week in Minneapolis involving the allegation of murder by a police officer of an unarmed person. The facts are horribly tragic. A woman from Australia called police to report the possibility that a sexual assault was taking place in an alley. A two-officer team responded, arriving minutes later. It was dark. At some point the RP approached the police car. For reasons that have never been explained one of the officers - an inexperienced young man - shot her.
The judge in the murder case ruled recently that a brief bit of evidence collected at the scene would be made available to the jury, but not to the public. This provoked outrage among the legal beagles at Powerline, both blog authors and commenters. The judge was suppressing evidence, many wrote in high dudgeon, citing Periwinkle v. Pumpernickel, or some such, in support. One writer helpfully added the citation (the volume and page number of the decision) in the event that someone a whole lot like me would want to look it up on their own. The judge, they opined, had made a ruling that was searching for legal justification.
What, you ask, could have provoked such ire? There is apparently police body cam evidence detailing the woman's dying moments, complete with video of her lying naked from the waist up. The officers are performing CPR, to no avail. The judge refuses to make that portion available to the public.
I say - good for her. All of us in the business have met judges like her. They make a ruling in their courtroom out of a sense of justice, proportion and common sense. When one of the attorneys questions the decision, the judge says, "This is my courtroom. I'll not allow that. If the appeals court disagrees, fine."
But saying the law is an ass on Powerline when they want video of a naked, dying woman played in open court is offensive to the lawyers who write there. This is why the average person often thinks lawyers are assholes.
Most people, hearing this tale, will have an immediate emotional reaction to it. It is the Dr. Jonathan Haidt "Elephant v. Rider" idea - that people start with their feelings (the elephant) and then justify that with rational argument (the rider). I'm no different. I can offer a thousand legal reasons why evidence that proves 1) The victim died, 2) the cops tried to save her and 3) she was naked - isn't necessary and can be kept from public display. One and two can be proven by other evidence. Three is not relevant to the case.
But, I have an emotional response to this...evidence...that is instant and visceral.
A man called our dispatch some years ago, reporting that he was having trouble breathing and requesting an ambulance. Whatever had taken him ill struck him fatally while he was on the phone with us. We found him, phone in hand, sprawled on the floor of his kitchen. A coroner's investigator, standing next to me over the body, remarked, "Really, there is no dignity in death."
Well, no shit. Make all the legal arguments you want. The law can sometimes be an ass. It doesn't mean we lawyers have to also be assholes.
Good for you, judge. Stick to your decision. It's the right thing to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment