Law and Magic Blog

Halloween Law

Ah, a woman after my own heart. Well, not literally. Victoria Sutton is a professor at Texas Tech School of Law, and she writes about law and popular culture. Great! She writes about Halloween! Greater! She writes about Halloween and law. Greatest! Her book, Halloween Law: A Spirited Look at the First Year Curriculum, is available from Vargas Publishing, and on Amazon.

Here's a description of the contents from the publisher's website:

Halloween Law is a spirited guide through law school study starting with that first scary year. Looking at the law through the lens of Halloween proves the old rule that truth is stranger than fiction.  Halloween cases that conjure up issues in constitutional law, criminal law, tort law, property law and contract law introduce you to the first year curriculum.  If you survive the first year, you can move on to several upper level courses for those who dare --- employment law, oil and gas law and lots of local government law creep into the Halloween Law experience. Halloween Law will leave you ready to deal with any case from the crypt.

Introducing Another Lawyer/Magician

An imaginative performance by lawyer/magician Guilhem Julia here. Professor Julia teaches at the University of Paris-XIII. His forthcoming book is L'oeuvre de magie et le droit (Larcier) (Creation Information Communication). Apologies for omitting the diacritics. (Yup, you should have stuck with French).

 

 

Wizarding at Law School

I have just come across this piece, which looks like grist for this blog's mill.

Darby Dickerson, Texas Tech University School of Law, has published Professor Dumbledore's Advice for Law Deans, in volume 39 of the University of Toledo Law Review (2008). Here is the abstract.

This article, prepared for the Dean's Symposium in the University of Toledo Law Review, includes a curriculum vitae for Albus Dumbledore, the greatest wizard of the modern age, along with seven pieces of advice for law deans, culled from Dumbledore's words of wisdom and actions in the Harry Potter series.

 

Examine This!

For those who think law professors have no discernible sense of humor, I suggest a perusal of Kyle Graham's holiday torts exam. I'm not responsible for injuries suffered by readers falling off chairs, cracking ribs (or smiles). I disclaim any duty toward you. For readers who think the idea of more lawyers is the essence of intentional infliction of emotional distress, why are you reading this post? Begone, before I drop a house on you. Negligently, of course. Happy Non-Denominational Gift Giving Holidays To All.

Law and Magic In the News

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mentions the work of our University of Pittsburgh Law School colleague Jessie Allen here (from October 31st).

Johnny Chriscoe, Law Professor With a Dash of Magic

Johnny Chriscoe, a professor at Campbell University School of Law, tells me he has been using magic in the classroom to get his points across for a number of years now. Watching his son develop a magic act inspired Professor Chriscoe to acquire some magic skills of his own. Professor Chriscoe, who teaches torts, insurance law, and trial practice, also has a background in music and theater, nice complements to prestidigitation.

Calling Law Professors With Performance Skills

For a discussion group at SEALS (Southeastern Association of Law Schools) next year, I am trying to put together a group of law professor who use performance skills to teach law: that would be folks who use magic, puppetry, and the like. Yes, I know some of our students think we're clowns. I mean those of us who use performance to make a pedagogical point. More information here at the SEALS Blog.

Gerald Uelmen and the Lawyer/Magician Analogy

Gerald Uelmen of Santa Clara University Law School writes here about the importance of exhausting federal due process claims at trial by intoning "magic words." He says, "I frequently compare trial lawyers to wizards who must recite precise magical incantations before they wave their magic wands and attempt to make evidence disappear." 

Of course, he is talking here about wizards like Merlin and Harry Potter, and I must point out that as far as I know, there are no such beings in the real world. What's also interesting is the assumption, common in popular culture, that these wizards must 1) pronounce magic words and 2) wave magic wands in order to obtain a particular result. I'd be interested to know what might happen if they left out one or the other. In law, we know. Generally speaking, the lawyer must 1) speak the words and 2) perform the act (for example, speak the words in the correct order or at the correct time or in the correct place). See also my prior post on getting exhibits admitted.

Secular magicians, by contrast, make objects disappear, but not permanently. When a lawyer "attempts to make evidence disappear," as in Professor Uelmen's examples, she wants it to disappear completely. If she gets the outcome she wants, it will no longer have any effect (or should have no effect) on the outcome of the trial. Lawyers and judges actually do have great powers, by their agreement, by our agreement, and through use of these magical words.

Lawyer/Magician Ron Rychlak

The University of Mississippi Law School boasts its own lawyer/magician, Ronald J. Rychlak, a thirty-five year member of the International Brotherhood of Magicians. Professor Rychlak writes in the areas of gambling law, the First Amendment, and religion and the law.

"Wanna See Me Fly All the Way 'Round the Earth In Less Than a Second? Wanna See It Again?" Law, Magic, and Powers of Observation

Calling all evidence and criminal justice/procedure profs: test your students' powers of observation. No, not with that gorilla walking through the students playing basketball video. Here's a new one posted by Richard Wiseman at his website Quirkology. (It's also uploaded to YouTube). In it he does a card trick, but that's not all that's going on.

Dr. Wiseman and his lovely assistant demonstrate how bad most people are at observation when they are concentrating on one task. Dateline NBC also had a piece July 16 on this point: Dr. Michael Shermer was the guest.

What I particularly like about the Wiseman video, however, is that it presents two concepts. First, it makes the point above--that we tend to concentrate on the point to which the presenter directs us. Second, and this is what I think is of value to the law professor and student, is that when Dr. Wiseman "pulls back the curtain," and allows us to see how the trick is done, he also allows us to contemplate the value and the importance of narrative,of viewpoint, and of the whole picture.

Dr. Wiseman fools us not once but twice. First he fools us by letting us believe that the trick has to something to do with the cards. Well, it does, but only partially. Second, he fools us by letting us think that the video itself is the entire narrative. When the camera pulls back to show us the trick once again, and how the magicians and crew have constructed it, we also see it from their viewpoint. And we understand the importance of getting all the evidence. Students watching a police or client interview can do the same thing. They can ask themselves, "Am I getting the entire story? What, if anything, is missing? What, if anything, is the bias? Whose viewpoint is not getting through?" Students have great difficulty seeing viewpoints other than their own, and they are so often convinced that they see the truth, and so upset to discover that they might be incorrect. (Many human beings have this same problem, but I'm limiting my comments to students). They can then ask, "How is the narrative constructed? To what end? What's the point?" The ultimate question--Qui bono?