The separation of facts from reality

As I've alluded to several times (I think) over the past few months, I cannot discuss the substance of most of my work for the court (and obviously the merits of a case are out of the question). It's the nature of the profession I suppose. Because some of my work deals with criminal matters (as much of appellate work covers I would say), I find it much easier to think about facts in theory than in reality. Let me explain.

Take any criminal matter, or at least one that encompasses very disturbing facts. On paper, it's easy to equate law from previous cases and not really think about the nitty gritty. And, leaving the whole golden rule argument out of this discussion, I'm left to wonder (not much, but a little) how much of an impact court opinions have beyond the legal world. The facts are the same for both legal eagles and the average joe or jane, but obviously to the victim (or the defendant for that matter), they take on a much different context.

Put another way, in creating "law" so to speak, isn't there some inherent thought about the consequences of the words the court uses? I'm not talking about the legal sense per se, but more for the victims who (likely) never read these legal opinions. And the newspapers that report on them. I can't count how many times I've read an article that completely misses the point of an opinion, or adds in flowery language that really makes the court look biased. It's infuriating.

In the end, I'm probably making a little something about nothing. The non-lawyer's take on an issue (and to some degree, the court of public opinion) has only certain bearings on the profession. It's the public opinion when a potentially negative (or positive) case comes out, however, that has sparked this particular topic.

I remember during my first winter break from law school, I was at a party and my neighbor was complaining about the way that criminals can break into houses, get assaulted by the homeowner defending his or her property, and then can sue the homeowner for damages. I sort of remember this being an episode of Boston Legal, and obviously there are plenty of defenses that make it less likely that the criminal will win this one, but the fact that he thought this was the actual state of legal affairs bothered me. And in light of some of the cases I've been working on, I sometimes wonder whether the court (and to a certain extent, myself) am partly responsible for these misperceptions.

In the end, I can't let it bother me, and I must conclude that the court is not responsible (or if it is, a higher court will correct it). Nor can I put much stock into how the press attacks the US Supreme Court for being either too liberal or not liberal enough. All I can say is that I do the best I can and try and be as objective and persuasive as I can be, and hope whatever aspect of the law I am working on is presented as true to the spirit of the caselaw as it can be. And if it's bulletproof to a further appeal or motion, that's good too. If only the briefs were as objective and thought about this when presenting their version of facts.

Anyway, my thoughts on why both Journeyman and Heroes has dropped off of my television list will have to wait until later this week. On that note, if anyone from the major networks is willing to pay me what I'll be making next year in a big firm, I'll gladly work with a team of other law clerks on a comedy series that is sure to succeed on Tuesday or Thursday nights.

Tags: golden rule legal argument, clerkship thoughts, remaining objective in writing legal documents