Doc Watson’s World Without Lawyers

If you search the phrase “Doc Watson” in the Lexis database you will find 13 reported cases in which those two words appear consecutively. However, none of the 13 has anything to do with Arthel Lane “Doc” Watson, the legendary blind guitar player and folksinger, who passed away in Winston-Salem, N.C., last week. Watson managed to avoid the intellectual property rights disputes and other legal issues that have plagued the professional lives of many performers.

Doc Watson was born in 1923 in Deep Gap, North Carolina, a small community just to the east of the town of Boone. He lost his sight at the age of one, and he picked up the nickname “Doc,” as a young performer when stage announcers had trouble pronouncing “Arthel.” (The “Doc” reference was apparently to “Doctor Watson” of Sherlock Holmes fame, although there was a baseball player named Doc Watson who pitched for the Chicago Cubs in the early 1910’s.)

Watson began playing the guitar as a child and began performing publicly as a teenager. Although a successful regional musician as early as the 1940’s, he first received widespread attention in the early 1960’s, when he was “discovered” by the world of folk music. In 1964, he began to perform regularly with his son Merle (b. 1949), a collaboration which lasted for more than two decades until it ended suddenly in 1985, when Merle was killed in a tractor accident on the family farm.

Over the course of his career, Doc, who was also recognized as an outstanding singer of old-time country music, won too many awards to enumerate here, but his honors included seven Grammy Awards over the span of four decades, along with a Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award in 2004, membership in the Bluegrass Hall of Fame, and an honorary doctorate in music from Boston’s Berklee College of Music.

I have spent much of my academic career studying the way that lawyers are depicted in popular culture, and I have also spent a great deal of time listening to the music of Doc Watson. While many of his recordings were instrumentals, he also recorded dozens of traditional story songs, and in his stage performances, he was a frequent and gifted story-teller.

However, I cannot think of a single Doc Watson recording that makes any reference to lawyers or judges.

An occasional outlaw appears from time to time—as one does by reference in “Tennessee Stud”—but in Watson’s songs disputes are settled personally (and sometimes violently), but never in a courtroom. The America of Doc Watson’s songs was a rural, frontier paradise where people settled their own disputes between themselves. Like Thomas More’s Utopia, it was a place where lawyers were neither needed nor desired.

I met Doc Watson one time. In the early 1980’s, I was having breakfast with friends in Charlie’s Kitchen, in Cambridge, Massachusetts. In that era, Charlie’s Kitchen was one of the few places in Harvard Square that opened early for breakfast (and it was also the only place where you could get a mixed drink before nine in the morning.)

We were breakfast regulars there, along with an assorted cast of characters, few of whom actually ate any breakfast. One morning in 1981 or 1982, around 7:30 a.m. who should walk in but Doc and Merle Watson, looking for breakfast. Country and old-time music aficionado that I was, I recognized the two of them immediately. My friend Gene Wayne, from Moundsville, W.Va., didn’t seem to recognize them at first, but realized immediately who they were once I pointed them out to him. Our other two friends, who were from Hilo, Hawaii, and Cape Madeline, Quebec, knew the name but did not appear to be completely up to speed on Doc’s music.

The two Watsons sat down at the table next to us, and Connie, the Irish bartender, asked them if they wanted breakfast. After they ordered, I shouted out, “Doc, we’re great fans of your music. It’s an honor to have you here.” Doc, of course, couldn’t see me, but after Merle mumbled something to him that I didn’t hear, he replied in that wonderfully lush North Carolina mountain voice, “Thank you boys. We appreciate that. We really do.” And then he asked up if we were students and we chatted for a while before we all went back to our fried eggs and hash browns. I never mentioned that I was a law school graduate.

On a final, sad note, Doc passed away on my 60th birthday.

 

Continue ReadingDoc Watson’s World Without Lawyers

Another Habeas Slap-Down From the Supreme Court; Where Is Habeas Law Heading?

The Supreme Court summarily overturned yet another habeas grant earlier this week in Coleman v. Johnson (No. 11-1053).  Johnson was convicted in Pennsylvania state court as an accomplice and co-conspirator in a murder.  Without getting into all of the details, let’s just say that the state’s case against Johnson was circumstantial and something less than airtight.  Johnson thus sought to have his conviction overturned in state court on the ground that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict, invoking Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979).  The state courts rejected this claim, as did a federal district court, but the Third Circuit reversed.

The Supreme Court overturned the Third Circuit’s decision in a brusque per curiam opinion.

Continue ReadingAnother Habeas Slap-Down From the Supreme Court; Where Is Habeas Law Heading?

Tearing Down Fences

G.K. Chesterton, the English essayist and Catholic thinker, said the following:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.”

To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, or that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

G.K. Chesterton, “The Drift From Domesticity,” in THE THING (1929).

It is long past time to stop tearing down fences in Wisconsin.

Continue ReadingTearing Down Fences