Frank H. Easterbrook (famous for his surly-burly manner on the 7th Circuit and his
Art. III “Hottie Bear” status over at Under Their Robes), must have hibernated through
Law Day ceremonies last May. The 2005 Law Day theme was “The American Jury:
We the People in Action.” In our May 1st post we noted:
The ABA’s Law Day theme page got it right about juries:
“The jury is the embodiment of democracy. We entrust juries—small
bodies of ordinary men and women—with decisions that involve the
liberties and property of defendants. In doing so, we confirm our faith
in the ability of people to make just and wise decisions, and that is the
very definition of democracy. We also see the jury system as an opportunity
to educate Americans in law, legal processes, and decision-making in a
democracy.”
Like the ABA (which is rarely praised at this website), we quoted from Alexis de Tocqueville
in his Democracy in America (free download from Project Gutenberg):
The jury, which is the most energetic means of making the people rule,
is also the most efficacious means of teaching it how to rule well… The jury …
may be regarded as a … public school, ever open, in which every juror learns
his rights.
Frank Easterbrook apparently has quite a different view of juries. On July 28,
the Antitrust Modernization Commission held hearings on Civil Remedies Issues. Judge
Easterbrook was a witness on the issue of Contribution, and submitted his 1980 article
(with Landes and Posner) “Contribution Among Antitrust Defendants: A Legal & Economic
Analysis,” 23 Journal of Law & Economics 331, as his Statement to the Commission.
Easterbrook continues to argue that those who want to change the No-Contribution rule have
not made their case, and that the current rule leads to better deterrence and stronger
antitrust enforcement. A very reliable audience member tells me (as confirmed by another
witness) that Judge Easterbrook referred to juries during his testimony as “twelve high school dropouts.” His point, I suppose, is that non-expert juries can make mistakes when applying
the antitrust laws or assigning levels of culpability to defendants, as would be required under a Contribution Rule.
“Twelve high school dropouts.” Isn’t that charming? It will be interesting to see whether the good
judge’s (frankly undiplomatic) phrase shows up in the official transcript of the hearing. This post
is my effort to make sure it’s on the public record.
Perhaps Judge E. should do a little remedial study on the American jury system.
He could start with this page to color from the Michigan State Bar’s Law Day Contest.
As our post noted in May, the picture (with jury, lawyer, judge and witness) and the
included questions make a fun learning experience. Next. Charm School.
By coincidence, Texas lawyer Clay Conrad wrote an excellent piece yesterday
at jurygeek, where he asserted “We do not need better jurors: we need better lawyers,
better experts, and – perhaps – better judges.” (via Mike Cernovich)
Master Issa saw a little pomposity in his day, too:
foolish cat–
yet he knows which futon
is his
scolding
vain man…
the autumn moon
he’s become a
sumo wrestler! the proud
parents
short summer night–
foolish flowers, clever flowers
bloom
translated by David G. Lanoue
Tangential aside: Writing this post caused a pleasant little flashback for your Editor
— reminding me of one of my brightest episodes as an antitrust advocate at the FTC,
twenty-one years ago. Through an enormous quirk in the federal antitrust caste system,
I ended up drafting the legal analysis of the antitrust per se rule and rule of reason that
appeared in the Amicus Curiae brief of the United Staes in NCAA v. Bd. of Regents,
468 U.S. 85 (1984). The brief opposed the position of the NCAA, which was repesented
at the Supreme Court by then-professor Frank H. Easterbrook. The Court adopted the
groundbreaking reasoning of the U.S. [smile], finding that the Association’s attempt to act
as the sole agent selling television rights for in-season football games for all of its members
violated the rule of reason, without having to do a “fullblown” analysis of market power.
For the first time this evening, I noticed that the caste system — SG over Antitrust Division
over FTC — did still exist when it came to the Court’s opinion. Although the Commission’s
General Counsel and I were listed on the cover and inside the amicus brief, our FTC employment
status apparently warranted exclusion from the list of lawyers “on brief” with the Solicitor
General. Like juries, lowly FTC lawyers sometimes get no respect from the judiciary.
August 1, 2005
Frank Easterbrook calls juries “twelve high school dropouts”
Comments Off on Frank Easterbrook calls juries “twelve high school dropouts”
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.