About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
Fan!

Become a Facebook fan to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 256. The conservatism of American law schools | Main | 254. Misunderestimating »
Sunday
08Apr2007

255. Historical Fatuity Watch

If Judge James Earl Major had known when to quit, he wouldn't be remembered in this blog.  The time was 1943 and Major, who had struggled through an intermittently-successful career as a member of Congress (twice getting defeated for reelection, but each time coming back to win the rematch two years later), was enjoying the serenity of his new position on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.

He was one of a panel of three judges selected to decide the appeal of a group of German-Americans who had provided shelter and material assistance to family members from the Old Country.  That doesn't sound like a crime, does it?  - except that those particular family members had made the Atlantic crossing in a U-Boat and had landed by night on American beaches.  They brought along crates of explosives.

The other two judges on the panel have claims to our attention beyond Major's minor fame.  One was Sherman Minton, later a Supreme Court justice.   The other was Otto Kerner, Sr., a Cook County pol and father of the Illinois Governor and chairman of the Kerner Commission (appointed to investigate the 1967 riots), who resigned his governorship to follow Dad onto the Seventh Circuit, eventually ending his distinguished career in federal prison.  Given his Dad's prominence in Cook County judicial circles, it seems reasonable to suppose he should have wound up there, too.

The saboteurs themselves were tried by military tribunal, an incident that's attracted renewed attention lately.   But the aiders and abettors got civilian trials, and it fell to Judge Major to write the opinion overturning their convictions.   He cranked up the rhet-o-matic, employing the stemwinding style that was already anachronistic then but is still favored by judges today:

At this point it seems appropriate to emphasize that no principle is more firmly embodied in our system of jurisprudence than that a person shall not be deprived of life or liberty except upon a fair and impartial ascertainment of his guilt. Of the many rights guaranteed to the people of this Republic, there is none more sacred than that of trial by jury. Such right comprehends a fair determination free from passion or prejudice, of the issues involved. The right is all-inclusive; it embraces every class and type of person. Those for whom we have contempt or even hatred are equally entitled to its benefit. It will be a sad day for our system of government if the time should come when any person, whoever he may be, is deprived of this fundamental safeguard. No more important responsibility rests upon courts than its preservation unimpaired.  [136 F.2d 661.]

So far so conventional.  You can buy this kind of stuff by the case down at the Judges Shop.  The final exam at the National Judicial College (located in Reno, in tribute to that city's founding role in modern American jurisprudence), requires students to extemporize on these themes for fifteen minutes while submerged upside down

Major's basic point - that the purpose of a trial isn't to arrive at the right result, or even necessarily a justified one, but only to reach whatever result by the approved route - is the guiding principle of all criminal law in America today.  So long as the pipe meets specs, it doesn't matter what sludge moves through it.

But then Judge Major got carried away - or, rather, carried himself away to the Judicial Valhalla reserved for the "vacuously, smugly, and unconsciously foolish."  He just couldn't stop himself from adding:

How wasted is American blood now being spilled in all parts of the world if we at home are unwilling or unable to accord every person charged with crime a trial in conformity with this constitutional requirement.

Fighting Nazi Germany, fighting Imperial Japan, fighting Fascist Italy -  "how wasted", if federal appellate judges don't exercise their power to veto the verdicts of juries!

As Judges Major, Kerner and Minton went into print with those words on June 29, 1943, Auschwitz's fourth gas chamber was just four days old.   Americans were wading ashore in New Guinea and the Solomon Islands.  Patton and Montgomery were putting final touches on the plan to invade Sicily.  D-Day was still a year away.

But at least the GIs knew the lives they bled out onto the beaches hadn't been lost in vain.  Each dead soldier was doing his small bit to ensure that judges of the Seventh Circuit could vacate factually-accurate verdicts.  How that thought must have comforted many a boy in his final moments!

"Padre ... I just want to ... tell my girl ... I think she's swell ... and my folks ... I never stopped thinking about them ... and ...  it's getting dark ... Padre, hold my hand ...  I'm cold ... Tell me one thing, Padre.  I need to know.  The Seventh Circuit.  Are they still sitting in Chicago?  Are they still overturning convictions of people caught trying to sabotage the war effort?  They are?  Oh, bless you, Padre ... now I can die in peace, knowing my death isn't a waste ...."

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.