A humorous top-ten list, including, at the end, the hairy-hand scene from The Paper Chase.
The post is obviously a joke, but it is funny because the items on the list ring a little too true, so it is worth thinking about them. I think. Thanks to Feminist Law Profs, where I found the link.
A phenomenon called “court tourism” has emerged. Growing numbers of individuals are going to their local courthouses for several hours at a time to prowl the halls, watch the proceedings, and contemplate the human stories being played out. Many of the “court tourists” are unemployed or retired, and almost all have no legal backgrounds. A few were recently interviewed on the Canadian public radio program “Definitely Not the Opera,” and the interviews can be downloaded from the December 13 broadcast at http://www.cbc.ca/dnto.
The phenomenon intrigues me. I don’t think it compares to the practice dating back to the earliest decades of the Republic of gathering to watch major trials. After all, the great majority of proceedings in today’s courthouses are not trials, and the court tourists watch whatever they can find, regardless of how trivial it might be. Perhaps court tourism was prompted by the extensive media coverage of the O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson trials. Alternatively, court tourism might be inspired by the ubiquitous pseudo-court shows such as “Judge Judy” and “Judge Joe Brown,” to name only two. Whatever the inspiration, today’s court tourists want to be entertained. A trip to the courthouse is cheap recreational activity.
We must surely have become a postmodern society when legal proceedings no longer seem the path to justice, but rather serve as a source of escapist titillation.
The Seventh Circuit had two new opinions in criminal cases last week, both of which delivered partial wins to the defendant. In United States v. Colon (No. 07-3929), the defendant was arrested after purchasing cocaine from two sellers, Saucedo and Rodriguez, who happened to be under police surveillance at the time. Colon was then charged and ultimately convicted of (1) possessing cocaine with intent to distribute, (2) conspiring with Saucedo and Rodriguez to distribute cocaine, and (3) aiding and abetting the conspiracy. However, the Seventh Circuit (per Judge Posner) ultimately found that the evidence did not support convictions on the latter two charges.
Criminal law students (at least my criminal law students) will immediately recognize the basic legal issue: when does a buyer-seller relationship give rise to conspiracy and complicity liability?