After that I went to a lecture given by a professor who had spent twenty-some years of her career trying to free a woman who was wrongly convicted of a first degree murder charge. It was a difficult story to hear, as she pointed out that the woman was given several chances to plead guilty in order to get out after three years, ten years, etc.... but always turned down the offer because she would rather be in jail than admit guilt (though there is a certain way that you can officially admit guilt but also maintain innocence- isn't law great?).
Then it was time for my tour of the Harmon Shakespeare Center! This was led by a professor who reminded us multiple times to remember that there were more things to life than law school and we shouldn't study too hard. I like him. On the way over it rained heavily and I got soaked, which I think might qualify as the first unpleasant experience I've had since I moved in, so I suppose I can deal with it. The center itself was gorgeous (Jerusalem stone imported from Jerusalem, African Cherry Wood imported from Africa, worked in Canada, finished in China, and shipped back to America, etc...) and featured the most flexible stage design I've ever seen. They can literally, with the flip of a switch, change the acoustics in the room from a .8 second echo to a 2 second echo or anywhere in between. This is a very difficult thing to do normally, so I'm impressed. The set for Julius Caesar also looks great- I think I'm going to try and go see it on Sunday, assuming I can make it there through the torrential rains.
There was ANOTHER lecture after the tour about personal ethics and responsibility as a lawyer. We discussed a case in which a defendant, who was winning a case full of only circumstantial evidence, told his lawyer in confidence that he was actually guilty. Seems like an easy thing to answer, but as it turns out it was not. I was pleasantly surprised that most of the people who raised their hands to add something to the discussion actually had something to add to the discussion. There were no students that I would refer to as "THAT guy."
But maybe I spoke too soon.
In the evening there was a Moot Court featuring some of the faculty (who have collectively argued over 60 cases in front of the actual Supreme Court) which dealt with a fourth amendment issue that will be going to the real court sometime this year. It's about GPS devices being used to track cars without warrants and it's a legitimately difficult case with excellent arguments to be made on both sides. My Civil Procedure professor took the anti-government side and deftly sidestepped all of toughest bits (would it be illegal if the tracking were for a short period of time? How is this different from having extended visual surveillance?). It was a very very cool evening and reminded me why I wanted to be here. At the end of the program the students had the ability to ask questions of the "justices" and advocates. Most of the questions were excellent. And then we got to THAT guy. I know for a fact that this was THAT guy because I could feel the entire audience slowly turning against him as he started to not ask a question and continued to not ask a question for about two paragraphs. It's as though he thought he could come up with something that would make the panel of some of the greatest Supreme Court scholars in the country go "OH! We didn't think of that! You're totally right!"
They did not.
As a general rule, I believe that there is no such thing as a stupid question... but you DO have to ask a question when you get up to ask a question. Otherwise you're just being that guy.
Played another game of 20 questions tonight, some more card games, and monopoly. I initiated none of that.
There was ANOTHER lecture after the tour about personal ethics and responsibility as a lawyer. We discussed a case in which a defendant, who was winning a case full of only circumstantial evidence, told his lawyer in confidence that he was actually guilty. Seems like an easy thing to answer, but as it turns out it was not. I was pleasantly surprised that most of the people who raised their hands to add something to the discussion actually had something to add to the discussion. There were no students that I would refer to as "THAT guy."
But maybe I spoke too soon.
In the evening there was a Moot Court featuring some of the faculty (who have collectively argued over 60 cases in front of the actual Supreme Court) which dealt with a fourth amendment issue that will be going to the real court sometime this year. It's about GPS devices being used to track cars without warrants and it's a legitimately difficult case with excellent arguments to be made on both sides. My Civil Procedure professor took the anti-government side and deftly sidestepped all of toughest bits (would it be illegal if the tracking were for a short period of time? How is this different from having extended visual surveillance?). It was a very very cool evening and reminded me why I wanted to be here. At the end of the program the students had the ability to ask questions of the "justices" and advocates. Most of the questions were excellent. And then we got to THAT guy. I know for a fact that this was THAT guy because I could feel the entire audience slowly turning against him as he started to not ask a question and continued to not ask a question for about two paragraphs. It's as though he thought he could come up with something that would make the panel of some of the greatest Supreme Court scholars in the country go "OH! We didn't think of that! You're totally right!"
They did not.
As a general rule, I believe that there is no such thing as a stupid question... but you DO have to ask a question when you get up to ask a question. Otherwise you're just being that guy.
Played another game of 20 questions tonight, some more card games, and monopoly. I initiated none of that.
There had to be at least one THAT guy. There always is. I will laugh if you have every class with him.
ReplyDeleteLaw school continues to sound awesome. And very much not really like law school. Law camp.