Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Anonymous Tip: In the Judge’s Chambers

Anonymous Tip: In the Judge’s Chambers

Last updated on: October 16, 2015 at 9:48 am by Libby Anne

Anonymous Tip: In the Judge’s Chambers 2015-10-16T09:48:37-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

pp. 136-138

It is now Tuesday morning, and Peter, Stan, June, and Gwen have arrived early. After they’ve had some time for last-minute prepping, Judge Romer’s clerk summons Peter and Gail to the judge’s chambers and begins going through some (I assume) routine questions about what witnesses they planned to call and how much time they’d need for their “case in chief.” Gail says that depends on whether the evidence presented at the last hearing stands or whether all of the evidence must be come in “anew,” and Peter says it can stand. Farris says he allowed it to stand both in the interest of time—-the judge had allowed from 10:00 to noon for the hearing—and for “strategic reasons.”

Gail says she will have one witness, Dr. McGuire, and will need thirty or forty minutes for her direct examination. Romer says he’ll allow forty minutes, because it always takes longer than they think. Peter says he will need an hour-and-a-half to examine the three witnesses he plans to call—Dr. Schram, social worker Rita Coballo, and police officer Mark Donahue—and twenty minutes for cross examination of Dr. McGuire. I’m suddenly wondering how this is all supposed to fit into two hours, because by my math that’s two-and-a-half hours and it doesn’t include any sort of opening or closing arguments, or time for people to get up and sit down, or any sort of recess.

Peter refers to the social workers’ visit as a “warranties raid of my client’s home,” which seems a bit passive aggressive in this context. Gail objects, and Romer tells her to “save it for the courtroom.” By the by, it may be worth reminding my readers that Farris is still referring to Peter as Peter and Gail as Willet. I’ve chosen to go with first names for both in the interest of personifying all players equally, but Farris is very intentional about this. Stan is Stan and June is June, but Donna is Corliss and Rita is Coballo. Interestingly, Romer is Romer, and we’re sticking with that because I don’t remember a first name being given.

Anyway, Romer says he’s read “both” briefs on the constitutional argument, and Peter is surprised.

“Both briefs, Your Honor? I was unaware that Ms. Willet had filed a brief.”

“Here it is, Mr. Barron,” Willet said, handing the thick document to him. Not only did she write thirty-five pages, but she had made copies for the judge of fifteen relevant cases. Duty required her to serve Peter with an identical copy. Peter was taken aback, but said nothing. Willet was a master of nuance and read Peter’s reaction perfectly. The faintest hint of a smile flashed across her face. It was a sweet moment.

I’m still not entirely sure what Farris wants us to think of Gail. I say that because, if you remember, Peter very much enjoyed the fact that he served Gail with a hefty brief at the last minute. Look at this line from back on page 120:

“Let’s see Ms. Willet top that by Tuesday,” Peter said with relish as he snapped off his computer, picked up his keys, and headed for home.

Gail has turned the tables and is feeling the same sense of relish Peter did when he attempted to one-up her over the weekend. And there’s also this back on page 132:

Peter sent his brief on the constitutional issue via a legal messenger services. . . . Peter fully expected her to be unable to respond.

Given that Peter was fine submitting a brief so late that Gail likely wouldn’t be able to respond, it would be hypocritical to judge Gail for doing the exact same thing. But I’m not sure whether Farris is judging her, or whether he is simply trying to present her as a qualified opponent.

Anyway, the judge asks whether Peter and Gail plan to call anyone else to testify, and Peter says no, unless something comes up that necessitates recalling a witness from last week. He adds only that he may call his client to testify, should need arise. Note that this means Peter has decided to assume that Gordon really is not coming.

Then the judge says this:

“Let me say, it is rare that I see so much preparation for a hearing like this. You are both very good lawyers, and I happen to believe that cases concerning the fate of children are every bit as important as car wreck injury cases. Car wrecks are very well litigated. Child abuse cases are usually pretty one-sided. You both deserve commendation for taking this very seriously. Let’s get going.”

This fits oddly given Farris’s quick dismissal of Legal Services lawyers in last week’s section. After all, many parents accused of child abuse or neglect (and remember that the latter accusation is more common) will not have the money to afford a lawyer themselves. Heck, Gwen’s employed as a nurse, and even she doesn’t have the money to pay for a lawyer. If you’re interested in ensuring that parents accused of abuse or neglect have competent legal representation, you really ought to appreciate the work done by Legal Services and argue for increasing their funding and manpower. But no.

Anyway, immediately after the above paragraph Farris gives us this:

Peter glanced at Willet. For a few seconds they shared a common feeling that they were engaged in one of the more noble aspects of being a lawyer. And then their natural instincts regained control and their minds began to race again, thinking how they could pulverize their opponent over the course of the next three hours.

I just flipped back to verify, and the hearing was definitely scheduled for 10:00, and Farris just told us that the judge had allowed until noon for the hearing, so that would be two hours, not three. I do suspect, though, that this paragraph, with the use of the word “pulverize,” probably reflects Farris’s approach to the courtroom.

I should keep going, but I’m having a very busy week and have other things demanding my attention. Sometime this weekend I’ll try to sit down and read back through the entire hearing, which runs from page 138 to page 170, determine how many posts I’ll need to cover it, and how I should divide them to ensure that each is in some sense cohesive. For the moment, the rest of you can sit back puzzling over the inability of anyone in this section to do basic math.

Oh, and you can also place some bets on what does and does not happen in the hearing!

Uncategorized

Anonymous Tip

Previous Post

October 14, 2015

Marriage Is Not a Magical Social Cure

Next Post

October 17, 2015 Rand Paul: If Gay People Don't Want to Be Discriminated Against, They Should Keep Their Gayness at Home

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Which Old Testament book is composed mostly of love poems?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Ecclesiastes Proverbs Song of Solomon Ruth