Every indexed document

judges and professors and was the basis for the judge’s instructions to the jury in the pick pocketing case. I found it highly questionable

I saw it as an opportunity to use my law school background in psychiatry and law—I was working on a casebook with two of my law school professors on “Psychoanalysis

“the jury could have inferred either that the wallet was picked from [the alleged victim’s] pocket

yet many pretend to believe the trial judges who pretend to believe the lying police officers.

judges and defense attorneys are aware of Rule IV.

and in some cases it is impossible to convict guilty defendants without violating the Constitution.

prosecutors and judges understand and believe Rule I.

who had been appointed to Represent Gideon. (My friend John Hart Ely was working for the Fortas firm during the summer the briefs were being prepared and I reviewed and edited several drafts with John.) Bazelon’s opinions—more often dissent...

and he went on to become Dean of Hofstra Law School and one of the nation’s leading experts in legal ethics. I tried to follow in his large footsteps but I’m not sure I ever made as good an oral argument as he did in the Morgan case. It was...

but Freedman had mined every possible nugget from the sparse record and to no avail. There was no plausible legal basis for reversal. I learned several important lessons from this exercise in futility: there’s an enormous difference between...

the judges conferred and unanimously decided to affirm the conviction. I was upset

” “Andrew Jackson” and “Oliver Wendell Holmes.” That’s what Mr. Morgan thought too. The only problem was he wasn’t a lawyer and that wasn’t his name! He was an uneducated

the clerks would prepare bound volumes of all the opinions we worked on during our clerkship. One was given to the judge and the others to us

and some pressure from the other judges on the panel

marked up by the judge and rejected with the admonition

we would meet with the judge and he would tell us which clerk was to work on the opinion. I always got the interesting cases (at least the ones that interested the judge). My co-clerk

he always presided and got to assign the opinion to one of the three judges on a panel (or nine when on rare occasions the entire court heard the case “en banc”). Following the oral argument

we would discuss the case with the judge

which consisted of the appellate briefs filed by the lawyers and an “appendix

that court served not only as a federal appellate court