Advocate for Truth

It must be distressing to preside over the rape of Truth in the courtroom. At the altar of justice,
before the Judge's very eyes, the atrocity is perpetrated in a casual, routine manner bespeaking
long and regular usage. And the rapists are people who proclaim themselves honorable and
devoted to the victim. Apart from the occasional nostalgic ex-litigator who relishes the
spectacle, the judicial witness may be tempted, understandably enough, to take a more heroic
role. But if the judge breaks with customary passivity, vaulting the bench and riding to the
rescue, his merciful mission often turns out to be a lame and embarrassing sortie. It's enough to
raise a judicial hackle or two. Judge Frankel's hackles are as stable as most, to my knowledge.
Yet they are clearly ascending. Their rise invites us to revisit an old acquaintance: the adversary
myth. Our beloved dialectic model of litigation offers much in the way of healthful mental
exercise, he suggests, but the "Truth" that emerges may be more synthetic than real. For the
collision of opponents is better designed to find an athletic victor than to search for Truth. Still,
it seems to me that properly directed and purged of obvious abuses, the juxtaposition of two
contrary perspectives, the impact of challenge and counter-proof, often discloses to a neutral
intelligence the most likely structure of Truth. Thus, at least in those instances (which I may
regard as more common than does Judge Frankel) where neither side knows certainly the actual
contours of a past occurrence, I conclude that the adversarial encounter, for all its hazards,
serves as one of the better methods of reconstruction. Venturing into the causes of Judge
Frankel's dissatisfaction and appraising his call for major surgery on the system, it may t
Professor of Law, Columbia University. B.A. 1951, Harvard University; LL.B. 1953, Yale
University. Member, New York and District of Columbia Bars. 1067 UNIVERSITY OF
PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 123:1067 be well from the start to keep separate
systemic flaws and overlaid abuses. For the essence of Judge Frankel's argument is that the
design of the adversary system itself is responsible for the dangerously recurrent violation of
Truth, whereas it may be that the ills that trouble him are attributable to improper excesses of
advocacy. And Judge Frankel, being as conservative as I in such things, would probably reject
radical surgery if lesser measures might relieve the condition. Few would dispute Judge
Frankel's theorem that Truth often suffers in the courtroom. He rightly reminds us that in those
relatively few cases (civil or criminal) that go to trial, one side or the other seeks-wittingly or
unwittingly-to defeat Truth. Indeed, it is likely that neither party is advancing the entire Truth as
some Omniscient Recorder might know it. And it may well be that if both lawyers told each
other or the court (with ideally matched generosity) all that they knew or suspected concerning
the facts, the result might bear a somewhat closer resemblance to the past event in issue.
Further, if our Judge could preside in the Southern District of Utopia where trial lawyers,
including criminal defense counsel, act as diligent investigators for their opponents, even finer
details of Truth might be supplied. Insofar as Judge Frankel is disturbed by the penchant of
terrestrial attorneys to argue contrary to, or independently of private belief, he has ample cause
for discomfort. Few experienced and successful advocates do not count among their wellworn
tools some devices to conceal at least a part of what they believe to be the factual truth. Many
can recall instances in which they advanced in court factual propositions the strict accuracy of

which they had cause to doubt, or sought to discount or discredit evidence they had reason to
think was true. And I venture that, at least among defense counsel in criminal cases, the
concession causes little regret or chagrin. The adversary system, in which trial lawyers are
trained and participate, serenely countenances such techniques-short of subornation of perjury.
The rewards of victory are rarely marred by the victor's misgivings over whether the verdict
actually spoke the truth. And for those lawyers who might pause over some tactical choice
designed to dim the full glare of truth, several available maxims of self-justification offer to
sooth his scruples. I cannot grant a priori, however, that the prevalent ethic supporting such
license inheres in the adversary system. While 1068 A REACTION TO JUDGE FRANKEL'S
IDEA free sharing of the product of partisan investigation may not comport with the adversarial
model-at least as applied to criminal defendants, the concealment or distortion of known facts is
no necessary corrollary of contention. This is not to say that I, any more than Judge Frankel,
believe that the remedy for such impropriety may be found in more intensive law school
instruction on the subject of ethics. The notion that virtue and upright deportment at the bar can
be taught to law students like trusts or the Uniform Commercial Code seems to me unrealistic
and self-deluding. Nor (with due deference to the dignity of its proponents) can the faults of
advocates in this regard be assigned to lack of skill. The Judge is surely correct when he points
out that the conventional skills of adversaries include the techniques of truth-bending. I cannot
be so certain that Judge Frankel is right, however, when he rejects also the remedial role of the
judge presiding.' He acknowledges that other respected judges have derived a contrary
conclusion from their experiences. And at least some judges who try less complex, more hastily
prepared cases report that their interventions usually have a healthy effect on the emergence of
Truth from the adversary fray. Yet my own inclination is with Judge Frankel's to the effect that a
trial judge is poorly positioned and informed to perceive or rescue Truth in the midst of a trial.
And his errors are costly, since his view of Truth must align his formidable presence with one of
the partisans. To many of us, imbued with the American model, such a fall from neutrality is a
primal sin. Thus, for what it is worth, I endorse Judge Frankel's assessment of (1) the frequency
of adversarial liberties taken with Truth in the American trial process; (2) the strange shape of
an ethic which tolerates if it does not encourage the advocate's I 1 think Judge Frankel speaks
throughout (as I do) of the judge's role in a jury trial. To me, a bench trial is an altogether
different event. To allow counsel to manage the production of proof before a judicial factfinder
as though he were a na'ive, lay, mute jury may be a blind and wasteful devotion io an
inappropriate trial format. Perhaps, after a full and proper introduction to the issues, and with
continuing guidance, counsel should allow the case to be developed by the judge. In bench
trials, then, a major role in the interrogation of witnesses should be taken by the judge who
should explore the issues of importance to him to the extent he deems necessary for his own
illumination. Choosing to waive a jury, the parties might be deemed to have endowed the court
with greater initiative and freedom in the factual inquiry, and neither the inquisitorial spectre
nor the prospect of a judicial stumble or two should be allowed to frighten us from an otherwise
sensible procedure. But all this is outside the scope of our present concern, I believe, and might
be left to som4 future piece. 1975] 1069 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW

[Vol. 123:1067 disregard for the facts as he knows them; and (3) the impotence of the
commonly proposed methods of prevention and counteraction. To these endorsements, however,
I must append a few misgivings.
The Boy Who Built a Wind Mill
William was born in a family of relative poverty and relied primarily on farming to survive.
According to his biography,The Boy Who Harnessed the Wind his father had been a rough
fighting man who changed after discovering the Christian God.[2] A crippling famine forced
Kamkwamba to drop out of school, and he was not able to return to school because his family
was unable to afford the tuition fee. In a desperate attempt to retain his education, Kamkwamba
began to frequently visit the library. It was at the local library where Kamkwamba discovered
his true love for electronics. Before, he had once set up a small business repairing his village's
radios, but his work with the radios had been cheap.
Kamkwamba, after some thought about a bicycle dynamo, his fondness for radios, and the wind
levels at his home, decided to create a makeshift windmill. He experimented with a small model
using a cheap dynamo and, using this experience, eventually made a functioning windmill that
powered some electrical appliances in his family's house. Local farmers and journalists
investigated the spinning device and Kamkwamba's fame in international news skyrocketed. A
blog about his accomplishments was written on Hacktivate and Kamkwamba took part in the
first event celebrating his particular type of ingenuity called Maker Faire Africa, in Ghana in
August 2009.
When The Walls Crashing Down
The Walls Came Tumbling Down deals with the scary things that happen to those who stumble
into a borderless or other-worldly consciousness without any intent to go there and without any
preparation or Operating Manual to tell them how to navigate when the walls tumble, the doors
of perception fly open and the bottom falls out of their mental filing cabinet, leaving the brain
suddenly free of the limits of mind.
Hezekiahs Choice
Hezekiah had just experienced a series of miracles, given to Him by the LORD to encourage
him and remind him of his dependency upon God and the power of God to do as He wills. This
experience would have been a spiritual high, a seminal moment in his life where he experienced
the voice and work of God first-hand. One might expect that Hezekiah would have a renewed
commitment and would continue to seek God as he ruled over Judah.
Upon hearing of his sickness the king of Babylon sent emissaries to Hezekiah. The region of
Babylon had broken away from the grip of Assyria and would continue to grow in power as the
power of Assyria would decline. Judah offered two opportunities to Merodach-baladan.
Merodach had the desire to conquer Judah, and his sending emissaries was a part of his plan to

bring Judah under his own control. Also, the presence of the temple treasury was common
knowledge. Merodach sought to know the actual content of the treasury and how the treasury
was defended.
Different Colors of Respect
Colors symbolism affects nearly every area of life: clothing, interior design, graphic design,
computer interface design, fine art, consumer product development and packaging, food choices
and corporate identity. The significance of some colors is universal. Other colors, however,
have meanings that shift in various cultures. The color preferences given below are generally
for those in western cultures. More about global color meanings can be found below in the
section on Color Symbolism in Global Graphic Design.
Your color preferences can reveal basic aspects of your personality. Think about the colors you
wear most often. These colors indicate both your strengths and your weaknesses. A variety of
psychological tests have been developed for psychiatrists and physicians to give them accurate
information about their patients by understanding their co lour choices. Find your favorite color
below and see what your choice indicates about your personality.