FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

When the Judge Says, "I Botched It"

Dressed in solemn robes and presiding over a decorous courtroom, the judge is an impersonal figure. The embodiment of legal authority, the judge is supposed to be the conduit through which the law speaks.

Like a piece of Kabuki theater, the judicial performance is a highly stylized affair. Its setting, the courtroom, is a significative and instantly recognizable space, and it relies on a set of props that have been hallowed by centuries of reverential use.

The justice system’s ceremonial trappings are equally evident in judicial opinions, which adhere to a strict set of formal conventions. Because the goal of the written opinion is to make the end result seem inevitable–compelled by the law, not the vagaries of judicial discretion–the judicial voice tends naturally toward a sort of authoritative blandness. Subjectivity is banned, polemic is suspect, and authorial idiosyncrasy is carefully circumscribed.

There are a few well-known exceptions, of course–Oliver Wendell Holmes’ epigrams, Judge Alex Kozinski’s pop culture references, and Judge Bruce Selya’s extravagantly obscure vocabulary words come to mind–but the generalization is still a fair one.

So what is a judge to do when his or her inner human being wants desperately to find expression? A Massachusetts district judge, in a recent decision, came up with a novel solution.

“I Botched It”

The vehicle for this judge’s assertion of personality was the Richard Reid case, better known as the shoe-bomber prosecution. Reid, a British national, was caught by vigilant flight attendants last December as he apparently attempted to blow up a transatlantic airliner using bombs concealed in his shoes. Facing a variety of federal charges, Reid was being detained in Boston and represented by a local public defender.

The court’s opinion, issued last July 26, begins unremarkably. The specific question at issue is whether the court’s previous order in the case, issued on an emergency basis, was valid. That order had barred the government from interfering with Reid’s communications with his attorneys, while also mandating that Reid not be removed from the district without prior permission of the court. The latter requirement, as the judge was to explain, reflected the concern that Reid was prime material for trial before a military commission.

As is customary, the first few pages of the opinion recite the case’s factual background and procedural history. The language is neutral and impersonal, and it is written from an objective third person point of view (“the Court” did this, “the government” did that, and “the defendant” did something else).

But suddenly, just as the narrative starts to gain momentum, things go startlingly awry. “The Court” leaves the scene, and the judge himself–a typically fallible human, as it turns out–enters.

“I was in the midst of impaneling a jury,” the judge explains, switching to the first person voice. Informed of an emergency motion made by defendant’s counsel in the Reid case, “I scheduled a prompt hearing that same afternoon–and botched it.”

“A Rather Nice Ring”

From there, the judge goes on to admit a series of mistakes. His tone–humble, personal, apologetic, and, in a hapless sort of way, humorous–is nearly as foreign to judicial opinion-writing as his willingness to admit error. (Let me just note that my year spent as a law clerk in no way prepared me for it.)

At one point, reflecting on his own previous declarations in the case, he notes that while they had “a surface plausibility and a rather nice ring, the entire analysis [was] simply wrong.”

From there on, the court’s opinion proceeds to switch back and forth from the first person to the third person voice, all the while explaining and analyzing the legal questions at issue. (And, demonstrating a very human tendency that every author can understand, he even finds an excuse to tout his book, Reflections of a Trial Judge.)

It is not until quite far into the opinion that the judge clarifies, in a footnote, the reasoning behind this seeming display of multiple personalities. In his “note on style,” he explains: “I write personally when revealing my own human mistakes and adopt ‘the Court’ usage when–I believe accurately–delineating the law.”

I Respectfully Dissent

If only it were so easy to separate the human from the judicial. But all judicial reasoning, no matter how carefully dressed up in neutral and uniform language, is personal. The law does not apply itself, and the different judges who do apply it–with different perspectives on the law, facts, and context–reach different outcomes.

Indeed, if it were possible to achieve real uniformity in the judicial thought process, there might be more room for subjective modes of judicial expression. The uniformity of the judicial voice, like the judge’s robe, is a disguise, though perhaps a necessary one.

Just as the little old man with the wrinkled face projects the Voice of Oz, it is the judge’s very humanity that makes him need to hide it.

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer from New York City.

 

More articles by:

JOANNE MARINER is a human rights lawyer living in New York and Paris.

September 25, 2018
Kenneth Surin
Fact-Finding Labour’s “Anti-Semitism” Crisis
Charles Pierson
Destroying Yemen as Humanely as Possible
James Rothenberg
Why Not Socialism?
Patrick Cockburn
How Putin Came Out on Top in Syria
John Grant
“Awesome Uncontrollable Male Passion” Meets Its Match
Guy Horton
Burma: Complicity With Evil?
Steve Stallone
Jujitsu Comms
William Blum
Bombing Libya: the Origins of Europe’s Immigration Crisis
John Feffer
There’s a New Crash Coming
Martha Pskowski
“The Emergency Isn’t Over”: the Homeless Commemorate a Year Since the Mexico City Earthquake
Fred Baumgarten
Ten Ways of Looking at Civility
Dean Baker
The Great Financial Crisis: Bernanke and the Bubble
Binoy Kampmark
Parasitic and Irrelevant: The University Vice Chancellor
September 24, 2018
Jonathan Cook
Hiding in Plain Sight: Why We Cannot See the System Destroying Us
Gary Leupp
All the Good News (Ignored by the Trump-Obsessed Media)
Robert Fisk
I Don’t See How a Palestinian State Can Ever Happen
Barry Brown
Pot as Political Speech
Lara Merling
Puerto Rico’s Colonial Legacy and Its Continuing Economic Troubles
Patrick Cockburn
Iraq’s Prime Ministers Come and Go, But the Stalemate Remains
William Blum
The New Iraq WMD: Russian Interference in US Elections
Julian Vigo
The UK’s Snoopers’ Charter Has Been Dealt a Serious Blow
Joseph Matten
Why Did Global Economic Performance Deteriorate in the 1970s?
Zhivko Illeieff
The Millennial Label: Distinguishing Facts from Fiction
Thomas Hon Wing Polin – Gerry Brown
Xinjiang : The New Great Game
Binoy Kampmark
Casting Kavanaugh: The Trump Supreme Court Drama
Max Wilbert
Blue Angels: the Naked Face of Empire
Weekend Edition
September 21, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Alexandra Isfahani-Hammond
Hurricane Florence and 9.7 Million Pigs
Andrew Levine
Israel’s Anti-Semitism Smear Campaign
Paul Street
Laquan McDonald is Being Tried for His Own Racist Murder
Brad Evans
What Does It Mean to Celebrate International Peace Day?
Nick Pemberton
With or Without Kavanaugh, The United States Is Anti-Choice
Jim Kavanagh
“Taxpayer Money” Threatens Medicare-for-All (And Every Other Social Program)
Jonathan Cook
Palestine: The Testbed for Trump’s Plan to Tear up the Rules-Based International Order
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: the Chickenhawks Have Finally Come Back Home to Roost!
David Rosen
As the Capitalist World Turns: From Empire to Imperialism to Globalization?
Jonah Raskin
Green Capitalism Rears Its Head at Global Climate Action Summit
James Munson
On Climate, the Centrists are the Deplorables
Robert Hunziker
Is Paris 2015 Already Underwater?
Arshad Khan
Will There Ever be Justice for Rohingya Muslims?
Jill Richardson
Why Women Don’t Report Sexual Assault
Dave Clennon
A Victory for Historical Accuracy and the Peace Movement: Not One Emmy for Ken Burns and “The Vietnam War”
W. T. Whitney
US Harasses Cuba Amid Mysterious Circumstances
Nathan Kalman-Lamb
Things That Make Sports Fans Uncomfortable
George Capaccio
Iran: “Snapping Back” Sanctions and the Threat of War
Kenneth Surin
Brexit is Coming, But Which Will It Be?
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail