Law and Magic Blog

Never Mind the Attorney/Client Sex Issue, Channeling the Deceased Spouse Can Be a Problem

From the National Law Journal (via the ABA Journal) a story about an Arizona attorney who faces suspension for telling her client that mention of sex in emails were from his deceased client's wife.

The lawyer, Charna Johnson, testified in the subsequent disciplinary hearing on the channeling claims that vague references to sex in e-mails she sent to the client were from the client’s deceased wife, and there was no sexual contact, according to the hearing officer’s report (PDF).  The National Law Journal has the story.

The hearing on the channeling allegations pitted two experts who disagreed on whether Johnson must have been delusional. A state expert said that’s the inevitable conclusion, since there is no scientific evidence to support channeling, while Johnson’s expert said that’s an inappropriate value judgment that may contravene the religious beliefs of millions of people.

Johnson began representing the client during his divorce proceedings in January 2000. The client’s wife committed suicide a few months later, and Johnson later co-represented him in probate proceedings.

Johnson and the client both testified that they genuinely believed the client’s wife was within Johnson. Two witnesses agreed. The client felt his wife had come back to heal some of the damage from her prescription drug use.

The attorney said she had her first experience on or about the day of her client's wife's funeral, according to the hearing officer's report.

More from the Legal Profession Blog here.

The Practice of Witchcraft and Magic in France and Burgundy in the Fifteenth Century

For the bookshelf: J. R. Veenstra, Magic and Divination at the Courts of Burgundy and France: Text and Context of Laurens Pignons' Contre les devineurs (1411) (Leiden and NY: Brill, 1998). There's a link to parts of the book here. The book discusses the nature of various crafty sciences in what was then France and the Burgundian state, and the legal treatment of those practices; Professor Veenstra points out that it is intended to steer the reader away (for religious and moral reasons) from such practices. It also includes accounts of trials of persons who engaged in witchcraft.

Magic in the Courtroom: A Foreign Lawyer Briefs the Case

A Queen's Counsel weighs in from across the pond on behalf of Steven Leventhal. After citing the fact that Mr. Leventhal uses that dollar bill trick (everybody talks about that dollar bill trick), David Pannick writes in part for the Times of London: 

Counsel are not required to stick rigidly to the point. They are allowed to illustrate their case by the use of literature, fable and even the lyrics of pop songs. At the Soham murder trial in 2003, Maxine Carr’s defence counsel, Michael Hubbard, QC, quoted to the jury Engelbert Humperdinck’s song Please Release Me, Let Me Go, to make the point on behalf of Ian Huntley’s former fiancee: “For I don’t love him any more.”

Why should magic tricks be any different? Why, indeed?

More On Magic In Philadelphia

Steve Leventhal, that cheerful lawyer magician from Philly, even made the CBS News on March 9 by virtue of that Blash case. His first case involved a boat christened "The Illusion." I can't stand it.

Still At the Center of the Storm

And the stories just keep coming....the AP has a nice one on magic Philadelphia lawyer (oh, yes) Steven Leventhal. I don't think this discussion over whether magic tricks are proper in the courtroom will disappear for some time. This is some serious fun. See here.

Something Up My Sleeve: More Magic in the Courtroom

The Blash v. ABA Construction Group magic lawyer fallout is ping-ponging madly around cyberspace and lots of lawyers, among them lawyer/magicians, are weighing in with opinions about the propriety of magicial trickery in the courtroom. Here's a sampling of the voir dire.

From Overlawyered: "That Lawyer Dude" comments that he's used "a ball and some cups to illustrate the prosecutor was trying to hide the issue under a bunch of immaterial issues about the defendant’s past criminal behavior." The prosecutor didn't like that but the court overruled him (her?), saying the ball and cups routine "wasn’t evidence" and "might keep the jury awake" and the tactic paid off. Continues "That Lawyer Dude", "That would have happened with or without the “magic”. Good bad or otherwise, he has a right to use his skills in summation. I would just prepare for it and hit it in my summation."

But "Raymer" counters, "And if the lawyer is also a surgeon (MD/JD) maybe he could wow the jury with the transplant of a heart of a liberal into the body of a conservative (punch line - but how does one stop the bleeding)." He compares magic tricks to "fluff", suggesting that one would use them to camouflage the lack of a strong case. 

SNAP!

From The Dirty Life & Times (a/k/a The Neutral Zone Trap), E. McPan says he (sorry, she--see comment posted below) thinks it's inappropriate for either counsel and for either civil or criminal attorneys. Apparently she has faced magical trickery, from a prosecuting attorney. "Even though the magician/attorney works exclusively for defendants, he appears (ha) to do only civil work. While it's entertaining, I think it's still inappropriate no matter which side does it. Especially when the remainder of someone's life is on the line, as in my case. Yes, the facts weren't changed by the prosecutor's magic trick, but it demeaned the gravity of the situation. My guy will be in jail until he dies, which will probably be sooner rather than later, given the nature of the crime."

So he (sorry, she--see comment posted below) poses the question to his (sorry, her) readers: Should such things be allowed? Are they distractions? One would think attorneys wouldn't try them in a bench trial.

"So what do you think - Is it improper to perform magic tricks for a jury? Does it matter if it's a civil case or a criminal case? What if both sides were allowed to perform tricks? Could one side give a dramatic re-enactment if the other side got to do magic tricks? Sing a song? Basically, if the trial looked like an Ally McBeal episode, would that be ok with you, as a practitioner in real life?"

From the Maryland Accident Lawyer Blog: Laura Zois comes to this blog's post via an Overlawyered post and says, "Attention all Plaintiffs' lawyers encountering this lawyer: who cares? Do you really think defense lawyer's ability to perform magic tricks is going to impact your verdict? I can think of a thousand easy mark responses to counter that the defendant's lawyer is using magic tricks. I'll go as far as to say I think plaintiffs' lawyers should want the defense lawyer to perform magic tricks."

Quizlaw (who seems to be at least one L.A. lawyer named Seth) discusses the lawyer/magician in question, Mr. Leventhal, responds to that slur against spending one's engaged with sand and suds ("what the hell’s wrong with spending your summers boozing it up at the Jersey Shore?"). His opinion? Magic tricks, like the case to which they're attached, are an illusion. "And if I were the attorney on the other side, I’d probably let him put on his little show, and I’d just talk to the jury about how their case is just an illusion and that when you look behind the curtain it all falls apart, etc." Ah, the Wizard of Oz argument.

Stay tuned.

Prior posts: Objection, Your Honor! and More on Magic Lawyering

More On Magic Lawyering

Here's more on that motion in limine arising out of the Blash v. ABA Construction Group litigation (the "magic lawyer" case)(subscription may be required for access to some material).

The motion requesting the court to order Steven Leventhal not to "attempt to perform magic tricks and/or magic acts in the presentation of his clients' case to the jury."

Mr. Leventhal's response to the motion, making the following arguments, including that "what a lawyer says (and does) during opening or closing argument is not EVIDENCE-it is ARGUMENT," "That the undersigned counsel opted to travel the globe to learn a special set of performance skills rather than wasting his brain cells drinking his summers away at the Jersey Shore should not be held against him," and "respondent counsel understands his role in the legal process, is respectful of same and would never dishonor the Court with cheap parlor student-(especially when Las Vegas quality illusions are so readily known and available to him.)

[Thanks to Frederick Brodie for the link].

Note: Previous post at Objection, Your Honor! Opposing Counsel Is Entirely Too Magical! 

 

Objection, Your Honor! Opposing Counsel Is Entirely Too Magical!

In a new article, Shannon P. Duffy covers the highly entertaining and age old question: should counsel be allowed to perform magic tricks for the jury?  Apparently, some opposing counsel say it's actually dirty tricks. It's also front and center in a recent case, Blash v. ABA Construction Group, because of the accomplished performance of one attorney, Steven Leventhal of Reger Rizzo & Darnall, who's also an adjunct at Temple University School of Law.

Mr. Leventhal has some favorites:

In one trick, Leventhal, who works exclusively for defendants, said he slowly folds a $1 bill while explaining to the jury that the parts of the plaintiff's case just don't tie together. When he unfolds the bill, he said, the astonished jury sees a bizarre bill that appears to have been cut apart and pasted together the wrong way, with the corners in the middle.

In another trick, Leventhal said, the slowly folded $1 bill is revealed to be a $100 bill and then, to the jury's collective amazement, changes back to a $1 bill.

Thanks to Ken Trombly for alerting me to this story.

Note: update at More On Magic Lawyering.