MURDER! ....she said

Murder...the most sincere form of criticism. As old as time. They say we are all able to do it, given the right set of circumstances. Some do it for sport, some because they are just nuts. Murder happens in every culture, and murderers are from every possible way of life. Tiger Woods wife thought about it recently, but figured out 300 million is better than a prison cell. Some never think about the punishment, they are "natural born killers"

My first year class will start studying homicide in a week or two and so it got me thinking about the area again. You see, no one is ever guilty of HOMICIDE. Homicide is not a crime. Homicide is the killing of a human being by another human being....Perfectly fine activity much of the time. It is the goal in war. It is the goal as punishment for crime. It is even the goal to protect yourself and your family. Homicide is good.

Murder, well, that is something else. Murder is the killing of a human being by another human being, with "malice aforethought".....What the hell is malice aforethought?. We all know what aforethought it...it is simply thinking about something before you act...so, what is malice? Malice is simply an evil thought, based on a wrong purpose. It is the legally required state of mind to convict someone of murder. Malice does not mean hatred or ill will. You do not have to hate someone to be found to have malice. And, there are lots of ways to prove malice.

When you actually intend to kill and commit an act designed to take a human life, that is a malicious intent.....and the crime of murder is the result. But malice for the crime of murder can also be shown by implication. For example, if you hit a person in the head with an iron pipe, you may not have actually intended to kill them, but you performed an act with an intent to cause a great injury. If the person dies, then the malice is implied. A "reckless and wanton disregard for human life"

If you drive your car into a crowd at a street party and 60 MPH, you may not actually intend to kill anyone, but your conduct is so reckless then the malice for the crime of murder may be implied by your actions. So it is murder if someone dies.

My favorite murder theory is what is called the 'Felony Murder Rule". Boy, do liberals hate this one. OMG!. Consider this. A couple of hundred years ago when the rule was formed in England, it went like this: If you commit a felony, ANY FELONY, and someone dies, even accidentally, they YOU are guilty of murder. The theory is the mental state, the "mens rea" necessary to commit the felony is transferred to the death, and the law construes the intent to commit the felony as an intent to kill...MURDER!... And, it did not matter what felony, in fact, since almost any crime was punishable by death in those days, it was kinda of a simple mental jump to make a rule that we kill you too.

The rule is still around in almost every state. It has been modified over the years and many if not most states now require the predicate felony to be one that is a dangerous felony...something like armed robbery. So today, in California, if you stick up a store and the owner has a heart attack and dies.....murder! she wrote. Now when you couple this felony murder rule with accomplice liability and conspiratorial liability, well hell, everybody gets a murder rap.

Lets say your half wit brother in law asks you to drive the car to the 7-11 so he can go in and rob the place. Your not much brighter than your brother in law, so for some reason you agree. Here you are, fat, dumb, and reasonably happy sitting in the getaway car, engine running while he goes in to rob the place. Now, brother in law has a real gun, but to make sure no one gets hurt, he takes the magazine out and shows you" see, no bullets" so you say OK, you'll do it.

So you drive up and brother in law, lets call him "Halftrack" (since half his brain jumped the rails). Halftrack gets out, goes into the store and points this gun at the clerk. Halftrack, generally unable to do anything right, accidentally drops his gun. Well, Halftrack forgot there was still one round in the barrel, and the gun falls on the hammer and accidentally goes off. The bullet hits the ceiling and bounces off hitting the clerk in the head and he dies. "CRAP" Halftrack yells!, and runs from the store. He tells you this as you speed away. Of course the surveillance cameras capture all of it and the cops actually beat you home. You are charged with robbery. You see, as a person who aided and assisted the principle (Halftrack) you are an accomplice. Also, you are also a co-conspirator since you assisted by agreeing to commit a crime with Halftrack, you are just as guilty of robbery as Halftrack is under the law......But here is the kicker. You are also charged with First Degree Murder!. Hell, you never went into the store, don't have a gun...nothin'.... But, under the felony murder rule, Halftrack is also charged with murder since he was committing a dangerous felony and there was a death. And you helped, so you get the same charge. Since the felony was a robbery, in most states, that makes the charge first degree murder.....And now you learn that, in your state, a murder during a robbery can bring the death penalty!!!!..... and all you did was drive Halftrack to the store.

That's how it works...like it or hate it. People who assist others to commit crimes and are actually present at the scene get the same charge under accomplice law. Those who agree to commit a crime and do something to further the objective are also guilty of the crime...and that is the case even if the co-conspirator is home watching "Dancing with the Stars" when it goes down. Here, the brother in law, you, are actually the wheel man. Your gonna fry! Murder is the most sincere form of criticism.

More on murder and accomplice liability later.....

Law School, Part II

I first wrote about law school in the early posts on this blog and maybe it is time to revisit the issue. I have noticed a distinct change in law students over the years, and this year seems to be representative of those changes. I am finding the first year students to be very engaged in the school process and much more inclined to work together in study groups. They seem to be doing it "by the numbers" also. By that I mean they are spending a good deal of time in the horn book rather than using study outlines like Gilberts. These are all good changes. I am impressed also at the level of actual legal insight and more so than in past years.

As I have said, law school is guided self learning. A law student gets out of law school exactly what she or he puts into it. Law Professors like myself try to guide this self learning process by explaining the difficult legal issues, and allowing the students to come up with the correct answers. Most do....some do not. While most who are admitted to a law school have the ability to be successful, some do not have the self discipline or drive to make it through. The failure rate for law school is ultimately about 75% historically. In my opinion, it is really about 25% based on actual ability, and the remainder fail because they choose to.

You see, law school changes the way law students think. They become more abstract. More analytical. They loose the luxury of being comfortable jumping to conclusions. With the possible exception of medicine, I know of no other professional process which does this. Some are simply uncomfortable with this and they choose to move on. That's fine. It is their choice.

But, things are changing. I have noticed a number of CPA's, teachers, engineers, and even a couple of PhD's and MD's in my classes. Many are there for a professional career change, some are their just looking for an intellectual challenge. Whatever their reason, overall, law students seem better equipped to handle the material and I foresee the failure rates to drop.....And that is a very good thing. ...... P.S. Merry Christmas to all.

Sixth Amendment - New Rules

The Supreme Court must just hate law students. I figure they rule on cases just to complicate their lives. Well, I got news for them....they make law professors lives more complicated too. Sometimes U.S. Supreme court cases get headlines and sometimes they just slide by without much notice. Such was the case in May of this year in Montejo v Louisiana. Simply, the facts are this: Montejo was arrested for murder and, as required in that state, appeared before a judge within the first three days after his arrest. While he said nothing, the court appointed a free lawyer. The next day or so, the cops again approached him and asked him (after is Miranda warnings, including his waiver of an attorney being present) to show them where he threw the gun. The great guy he was, he said OK and did so.

Now for over twenty years as a result of the case of Jackson v Michigan, the rule was that once a "critical stage of the proceeding" has begun, like arraignment, and counsel appointed, the cops were done...finished...nada...CANT ASK THE BAD GUY ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CRIME...unless of course his lawyer says it is OK and is there (right, like that's gonna happen).

Now, in a 5 to 4 decision, the court overruled Jackson and allow the cops to contact the represented defendant and, if he waives his right to counsel, interview him about the case he has already gone to court on!. Now, the last thing anyone would ever call me was a liberal...But this decision causes me some concerns.

So, I guess every defense attorney better tell his criminal case client to not waive his right to a lawyer even well into defending him because it appears the cops can contact the represented defendant and ask him or her to forget about that lawyer and talk to them, and if they agree, the statement is admissible But here us where it gets interesting

The American Bar Association and the California Bar Association rules of ethics state that an attorney "shall not" have communication with a represented party. So, what if one of the detectives or investigators is also a lawyer?...... Don't laugh, there are more cops that are also attorneys than you might think. Now, the cop cannot do his job because to do so would violate the rules of ethics....How about this? The Sheriff or Chief of Police is a lawyer?...and his deputies or officers are his "agents"...Now the Chief or Sheriff is in trouble if his cops (as his agents) contact a represented party. Same dilemma exists for investigators who work for the DA.

So, aside from making life complicated for law students and law professors, the Supreme Court also made life for attorney cops and attorney law enforcement chief officers a bit more professionally dangerous

So, I am sure the cops are celebrating the decision in Montejo, but I see a bunch of litigation as a fall out of this decision and what were pretty clear rules, now less clear.

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

This session, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider a case which may be the next "shoe to drop" after the Heller decision. As many have said, Heller is significant for both what was affirmed in the ruling and what was not. What was not said was a statement regarding whether the second amendment is a fundamental right. Better said, whether the states can be limited in their legislation on firearm related restrictions.

Heller said the right to own a handgun is a personal right of every person, but allowed that states can make "reasonable restrictions" related to gun ownership, carry, and related issues. So, in reality, Heller said states cannot ban handguns or handgun ownership. That said, how far can states go in restricting the carry and use of handguns was largely left undecided. Many big cities and states have rather extensive restrictions related to guns, so much so, many would argue it is the same as a ban as applied.

Now, I am conflicted....I am a fan of states rights and generally believe the federal government should stay the hell out of our lives. So, under that premise, I should be supporting the rights of the states to legislate in this area. Well, I am...kinda. But, where a right is fundamental, as I believe the founders meant the second amendment to be, then the states scope of legislation cannot be used to undermine the general intent of the right. So is the case in other fundamental rights like speech, assembly, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, and any act which infringes on the equal protection and the due process of law.

So cities and states which, in application, so restrict the personal right to possess a gun are or should be unconstitutional IF, and it is a really big "IF", the second amendment and its protections are deemed fundamental. You see, states my not infringe on a fundamental constitutional right unless they can show a compelling governmental reason. A very high burden. If the rights and protections of the second amendment are not classified as a fundamental right, then states (and cities) can legislate in this area by just showing a rational basis for the law. And here, the states may still be in trouble.

It is largely uncontested that in every major city or jurisdiction where there has been a functional ban on handgun ownership, violent crime and specifically gun related violent crime has increased dramatically. Australia banned gun ownership and saw an incredible increase in gun related violent crime. The simple fact is, gun control does not work. It makes certain people feel better, but it has no affect but to prevent law abiding people from defending themselves. So, it may well be that government cannot even show a rational basis for restricting guns.

So, will the Supreme Court adopt the second amendment as a fundamental right, and in doing so, cause most state and local gun laws to be deemed unconstitutional? Who knows. It could be said if the Supreme Court was going to go that far, they had every opportunity to do so in Heller. Did the court simply want to see how the lower courts and the states handled the ruling before deciding the big question? Maybe, since the court does not like to go farther than needed on issues. The bottom line is gun ownership is not going to end irrespective of what the court decided. Gun confiscation is not going to work. There are not enough troops to accomplish this in any amount of time. It would take the first airborne division a year just to get through Berry Creek where every approach to a house would result in a fire fight. And, frankly, the local police and the military are not inclined to cooperate in such a plan anyway.

As crime creeps up and the people feel less secure in their lives and their futures, the wind of change may very well spell it is time for a pronouncement on this issue from the court. The second amendment is not about hunting or sport shooting. It is about tyranny . It is about protecting us against those who would take away our constitutional rights, and never before has it been as important as it is right now. It will be an interesting year in constitutional law.

"The Criminal Goes Free Because The Constable Blundered"

Justice Cardozo made that observation in response to the newly crafted "ExclusionaryRule". In basic terms, if the cops violate the fourth amendment in the search and seizure of evidence, then the evidence cannot be used in the trial. It is a judicially created rule to provide a remedy for a constitutional violation. It punishes the cops and the prosecution and it can and has resulted in very guilty people going free. Is it just and effective?...You be the judge.

Clearly, with no sanction against illegal police conduct, there would be little incentive for a few cops to follow the constitution. Many years ago, the application of the fourth amendments prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures was a bit broad in application. If a person was arrested in their home, the cops could search the entire place. Searches without search warrants were done all the time and it seemed to be OK with the courts.

In 1914 the Weeks case forbid the admission into trial any evidence taken or seized by federal officers in violation of the fourth amendment. This federal rule of procedure applied only to federal officers and federal prosecutions for many years. The state cops and prosecutors were able to continue and use illegally taken evidence in trial and, while a violation of the constitution, the evidence was still used in the trial.

In 1961 in the famous case of Mapp v. Ohio the Exclusionary Rule was finally applied to the states, and now any evidence taken in violation of the fourth amendment was not available for use in court...period...."But Wait, There's More!!!"

Almost immediately, the courts started carving out exceptions.The most notable in 1984 was United States v Leon where the court said the rule should not apply to a search warrant served by the cops in objective good faith in its legality, but where the judge that issued it made a mistake.

There are others developed over the years and it reminds me of the judicial tinkering performed in the Miranda decision, and the list of rulings carving out exceptions to that artificial rule. You see, neither the Exclusionary Rule or the rules set out in the Miranda case are really constitutional in origin. There is nothing in the fourth amendment which commands the exclusion of evidence seized in violation of it. Indeed, some may argue the implicit right to privacy contained in the fourth amendment is little help in justifying the exclusionary rule. Why should evidence of probative value, relevant to the issue, with sufficient reliability be excluded from the trial?. Why should it matter how the cops got it. How the evidence was obtained has no impact on the final element of justice in a particular trial. Why should a guilty person go free because the jury did not know of the evidence because it was excluded?. Is the Exclusionary Rule in the best interest of the administration of justice?.....Is it fair?.....Should the criminal go free because the constable blundered?.....

Those who argue in support of this artificial rule state that suing the cops and their bosses does not provide a sufficient deterrent. Well, maybe....And in the past, before 42 U.S.C 1983 damage claims were hard to prove. But now, this federal statute allows suits where a persons rights are violated and who among us has not heard of multi million dollar awards against police agencies.

Does the exclusionary rule deter bad police conduct.....Maybe, maybe not... I think today's cops are more afraid of being sued than they are of their case being thrown out of court. Cases come and go, but each cop only has one home and one retirement and they don't like to bet them to put some dirt ball away.

You decide......does it do the job in keeping the cops in check?..or, does it simply result in some crooks going free when the evidence is excluded..... "Film at 11"

The Fourth Amendment

Cops and criminal lawyers find themselves in the fourth amendment area on almost a daily basis. The press likes to talk about it, and civil libertarians potificate about the protections it provides. In deed, nothing is really more important to the liberties we enjoy as the protections provided in this amendment to the constitution.

The fourth amendment protects us against unreasonable searches and seizures. It provides that a person shall be secure in their person, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Big sentence but it only protects the four areas listed. What it does not do is protect citizens or non citizens in foreign countries. A famous case where several DEA agents went into Mexico and, without a warrant, searched a dope suspects house by breaking in and searching was upheld and the evidence admitted at the persons trial. But, it does protect foreign nationals within the country whether or not they are here legally or a citizen of this country.

The above is known as the "reasonableness clause" Now, as you might guess, each word within this clause has developed distinct legal meanings. What is a "house"? What constitutes a "seizure"? and, What is a "search"? If the conduct by the government does not fall within the legal meaning of the act or conduct, then the amendment does not apply. Further, if any of the conduct protected by the fourth amendment is performed by someone not connected to the government, then the protections of the amendment do not apply. So, your local security guard for Walmart can violate your fourth amendment rights, perform a search which if done by the police would be a violation, and then turn what he finds over to the cops and you will next see the evidence in court!. Now, that said, if the cops put him up to it or he is in any way an "agent" of the government, then his search would be just as much a violation as if performed by the cops.

Now the fourth amendment has what is known as the "warrant clause" This states "No warrant shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation.
And then there is the "Particularly Clause, which states " particularly describing the places to be searched and the things to be seized".

But you might notice there is nothing in the fourth amendment which actually requires a search warrant. It only protects against "unreasonable" searches and seizures. While a number of supreme court cases have either said or implied that searches without a search warrant are presumptively unreasonable, that is a product of court decisions, not from the wording of the clause. legal writers have suggested that a so called "reasonable search" is not just one sanctioned by a warrant, but can include other types of searches without warrants. While the supreme court has yet to actually rule whether a search warrant is always required for the reasonableness standard to apply, they have carved out so many exceptions to the search warrant requirement, one could argue that a search warrant is not required to search most things. I will touch on these exceptions in the future and you may agree.

And, more to follow on the whole issue of the fourth amendment and its application to state officers. Remember, the Bill of Rights initially only applied to federal officers and courts and the states were free to fashion any rules or no rules. This led to the so called "silver platter" doctrine where state officers would dirty search a crook, and then turn the evidence over to the feds on a "silver platter" to now be used in a federal trial. The supreme court dealt with this in an interesting way and also came up with a penalty for violations which to this day, remains controversial. Stay tuned.

Vehicle Searches Incident To Arrest

Hey, you can't search my car, you don't have a search warrant!"

That statement is being said to some cop somewhere in this country as you are reading this. While it is likely some people who are contacted by the police have more experience with the law than the cop who contacted them, their criminal record hardly makes them lawyers. The basic rule is that all searches require a search warrant....except for the almost countless exceptions. Many years ago now, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that a search of a motor vehicle made by officers after a person was arrested while an occupant of the vehicle was one of these exceptions. You see, the justification is and was that the person under arrest might break free and obtain a weapon from the vehicle. The search of the passenger compartment was allowed incident to an arrest for the safety of the officers.

The cops could look anywhere in the passenger compartment that was big enough to put some type of weapon. If they found an illegal weapon, they could take it and it could be used as evidence against the bad guy. If in the course of "patting down" the passenger compartment they find evidence of crime, fruit of a crime, or contraband.......THEN they can search the entire vehicle, trunk, engine, inside the tires, headliner, everywhere for other evidence. It's called the automobile exception (to the search warrant requirement)

The legal theory for the exception to the search warrant requirement for vehicles is simply the vehicle has wheels and might leave!...That simple.

This year, however, the supreme court threw a curve. The legal theory allowing officers to search a passenger compartment of a car when an occupant was arrested was so broad that it allowed this search even though the person arrested was in handcuffs, and in the back seat of a patrol car across the street!. This year, the court narrowed up this rule and limited the vehicle pat down to only those occasions where the person was still unrestrained and in the area of the vehicle. So everywhere, officers who want to look through a car for weapons have to come up with safe ways to keep Mr. Badguy around them while they search. Now, if they find some of the above items, like dope, then Mr. Badguy is now going to be arrested for the dope too and since the dope allows a full vehicle search, then it does not matter where the crook is when that search is done.

So, if you get stopped by the police and arrested for some old traffic warrant or something, please don't be one of those who yell at the cops that they can't search your car because they don't have a warrant........they don't need one!

Poor Ernesto Miranda

Poor Ernesto, hell, he never really had a chance. His mom died when he was six years old, and he committed his first felony at the ripe old age of sixteen. In March of 1963, Ernesto was arrested for rape, and had little insight his name would become know to every cop and most citizens. His case, you see, resulted in the so-called Miranda decision by the Supreme Court. And even though his case made him famous, he was later convicted again of rape in a subsequent trial. Although his statements to the police were thrown out, he was convicted anyway and sentenced to 20 to 30 years in prison.

When Ernesto got out of prison, he made a little spending money by autographing the local cops "Miranda" cards for a few dollars each. In 1976, poor Ernesto met his fate. It was in the La Amapola Bar in Phoenix, Arizona. Ernesto got into an argument with another patron and when Ernesto went to the men's room, his killer followed him in and stabbed him to death.

The cops arrived almost immediately and arrested his killer. It was then the irony became clear to all when Ernesto Miranda's killer was placed in custody for murder......... and his "Miranda rights" were read to him.

It's In The Constitution So It Is The Law!!!!

The Bill of Rights......The amendments to the constitution are part of the constitution, right? Right!. So they all apply to everyone in every state, Right?.....Wrong! Or to use a term lawyers often use...."Maybe!"

You see, many of the rights contained in the first ten amendments to the constitution have never been applied to the states. The most notable is the so-called right to bear arms under the 2nd Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court has never held the right to keep and bare arms as a fundamental right. OK, confused?....lets back up.

In the early days, there were supreme court judges who felt that all of the amendments ought to apply equally to the states and be enforced upon the states therein limiting the states power to enact rules differently. However, the majority of the justices felt the amendments should be selectively applied to the states and "only those rights held fundamental in the scheme of ordered liberty" should apply. You see, the Bill of Rights, the amendments to the constitution only apply to the federal government. And initially, only the federal courts applied them.

Over time, the court settled on the concept that the due process clause of the 14th Amendment was the vehicle used to apply any of the amendments to the states. The 2nd Amendment has never been found to be "fundamental" leaving the states to enact any laws they wish in the control of guns. In 2008 the Heller decision came as close as any case has in finding that a individual person had a right to possess a gun. Many believe this is a ruling which forces the states to adhere to the rights afforded under the 2nd Amendment. But, the Heller decision does not go far enough, in my opinion, to hold that view. While it made it clear that gun possession was a right that is individual, it also said the states can enact reasonable restrictions related to gun ownership. Heller also did not say the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bare arms was FUNDAMENTAL. In not so ruling, it is left open whether or not the 2nd Amendment is controlling.

So, ..... the bottom line is that not all so-called rights contained within the Bill of Rights applies or limits state action. Only those the Supreme Court has held to be a fundamental right. A fact many gun right proponents forget or never knew. The big ticket items like freedom of speech and the press, unreasonable search, the right to a lawyer when being questioned by the police, reasonable bail, etc. apply to all present in this country. But before you proudly proclaim a right found in the Bill of Rights as yours and the local police violated it, better check and see if it applies to state officers and to you!.....It might not

Miranda

No supreme court decision has caused the level of misunderstanding, conflicting interpretations, and misapplication than Miranda v. Arizona. In its basic form, the decision held a person in police custody must be read a statement advising the person they don't have to talk to the police, and they can have a lawyer before and during any questioning by the police. Seems simple enough, don't you think?

But, wait!....Now we have to discuss what is "questioning"?, and What is "custody"? And, is the questioning being done by "police"?

In Miranda, the court said the rights Miranda protected were constitutionally protected rights....but, the court referred to that decisions and its application as a protective measure only, and the failure to advise a person of their so-called Miranda rights was not a constitutional deprivation.

In the 1970's, the California Supreme Court ruled that Miranda applies anytime the "focus" of a criminal investigation identified a suspect. "Custody" was unimportant. I recall in those days reading the Miranda admonition to people over the phone!

One can write a book (and many have) about the Miranda decision. For this post, suffice to say Miranda only applies to custodial interrogation. A person does not have to be told they are under arrest to have Miranda apply. A person can be in "Miranda custody" long before that because of the circumstances of their contact with the police. The police do not have to read someone their rights under Miranda when they are arrested. They only have to if they ask questions designed to elicit an incriminating response. Booking questions like a persons address, emergency contact numbers don't apply. I don't care what you see on "COPS".

Does a simple failure to read someone their rights under Miranda constitute a constitutional deprivation? ........Maybe! and Maybe not!. The Supreme court has been all over the place on this and the issue is not settled. Anyway, more later on poor Mr. Miranda.

What is "Criminal Procedure"?

The law school course in criminal procedure is a limited version of the course on constitutional law. Many law school courses are wide ranging, in fact, the California Bar Exam tests the areas of the 4th, 5th, 6th and 14th amendments almost exclusively. This course is a fun subject course. It is the real cops and robbers tale. Almost all cases of note are U.S. Supreme Court cases, and every term there are new decisions on point. Cops call this subject matter "search and seizure".

Cops: It is amazing to me the lack of in service training for police officers in this area. In fact, this area of law, much more than any other, is used every day by cops. yet, police agencies and individual officers, in large part, provide very little in the way of updates.

The result is like sex.....I mean, cops learn about the search and seizure rules generally by talking with other cops, not from reading, classes, or any other source. That's how we all learned about sex, right...by getting misinformation from our friends. The higher the rank of the cop, the less likely they know anything much beyond their academy training. Yet, search and seizure law changes all the time.

As a result, police agencies sometimes turn in cases for prosecution with big problems. Police agencies need to institute ongoing, regular training for their officers with all attending, including up to the Chief

Law School

Law School........A place where ordinary people are changed forever. Before law school, people have the ability to choose emotion over reason, they could make decisions based upon no analysis other than feeling, and they were probably happier. Law school transforms people. No, they don't change their appearance, at least not significantly. Law school changes the way people think. More accurately, it changes a persons thought process.

Law school, by its process, converts a persons thinking. Values do not change. Opinions and views of the world do not change fundamentally. What changes is a persons freedom to jump to conclusions based upon insufficient information. Lawyers think in a structure. Lawyers weigh the information available and initially decide whether there is enough information to draw any inferences or conclusions. By training, emotion is not (or should not) be part of the equation. The rest of the world has the freedom to think emotionally and act out of that environment. Lawyers do not.

What is it about the law school experience which causes this transformation?. It is really simple. Lawyers spend thousands of hours reading cases in law school. They read the analysis by judges of case facts. And, they eventually start to apply the same process to not only problems in their profession, but in their personal everyday life. It is a slow evolution of the thought process. Whether it is good or bad depends on your point of view.

Law students who take short cuts and use pre-written case briefs do not participate in the process. In my view, without the case law reading, law students never fully evolve, and are limited in their professional life by this. While very smart law students may pass the bar exam because they have memorized the rules and definitions. They, however, are lacking when a legal issue comes along and they cannot simply dredge up from their memory the rule which applies. Sometimes, there has been no rule set and the issue is one of first impression never considered before. Those who did not "evolve" through the tried and true process, are also handicapped in handling some legal issues later in their career.

Law school is the study of law and is self taught. Law professors like myself sometimes think their role is greater than it really is. Indeed, law professors are best when they make the student find the answer through the analysis of the facts, without providing the answer. This socratic teaching method works, and has been around as long as there have been law students. Law schools simply provide a structure for law students to become lawyers through their own work. Law professors are simply tour guides in this adventure.