ILNews

Indiana Judges Association: Dealing with different takes on language

David J. Dreyer
December 7, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

IJA-Dreyer-DavidNews item: Pope brings back “consubstantial” to Catholic Mass.

News item: Indiana removes “preponderance” from jury instructions.

What happens when honored traditions collide with contemporary preferences?

A trial judge’s job is often befuddling. We have to differentiate between peoples’ language, their values, even their competing views about what language means. So when the Pope and the Indiana Supreme Court have different views about what direction language should take, what is a trial judge to do?

Regardless of one’s faith preference – or not – this is a lively and vital conundrum. On one hand, we lawyers have plenty of cases and experiences to help us address each case and its issues. On the other hand, how do we deal with the enduring dilemma best expressed by the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein: “The limits of my language mean the limits of my world.” (I am now presumably the only Indiana judge ever to quote Wittgenstein.) Consider the following courtroom exchange:

Judge: “Raise your right hand.”

Witness reaches for the stars

Judge: “No, just hold it by your head.”

Witness puts hand on top of head

Judge: “No, hold it by your face.”

Witness puts hand on cheek

Judge: “Let me see the palm.”

Witness holds hand out palm up.

Judge: “Let’s forget the hand thing. Do you solemnly swear …”

Believe it or not, this exchange really took place in an Indianapolis courtroom with a native English-speaking person. Overall, it illustrates a simple gap between the interpretations of commonly used words. In law, we oftentimes call this “statutory construction.” A recent Indiana case shows how strained this can become. On one hand, the court subtitled a section by using the word “propinquity.” (This is now presumably the only Indiana court ever to use the word “propinquity” in the 21st century.) On the other hand, the irony is that the case is about contrasting interpretations of common language in a sentence. The court cleared it all up by writing:

“In any event, while the gerund ‘operating’ is nominally a noun, it is not functioning as such in section 3, but, rather, as the object of the prepositional phrase ‘of operating while intoxicated,’ which is functioning as an adjectival phrase to modify ‘conviction.’ As such, ‘conviction’ is the noun closest to the prepositional phrase beginning with ‘that occurred within … five … years’ and, in our view, is clearly being modified by that phrase as well. In summary, while we acknowledge that word order is important, there is nothing in the word order of section 3 to suggest that the phrase ‘occurred within … five … years’ is intended to modify anything other than ‘conviction.’”

Hmm … I guess there is no “on the other hand” here.

What we mean is not necessarily shown by what we say. Given the inherent enigmas present in any language, one wonders how we prevent a virtual Babel everyday in our courtrooms. Consider this famous courtroom example:

Lawyer: “And lastly, sir, all your responses must be oral. Ok? What school do you go to?”

Witness: “Oral.”

Lawyer: “How old are you?”

Witness: “Oral.”

We lawyers are eloquent, educated, engaging and enigmatic. We sometimes seem most betrayed by our ability. The use of language is the exercise of critique. Similarly, the decision to spare language, or say less, is equally essential to analysis. But lawyers all too often require themselves to propagate phrases and purportedly build language fortresses to protect clients’ interests. Judges, then, are all too often left with the resulting conflagration when the fortress is attacked. Some judges are literally confined to confusion. Chief Justice Joseph Weintraub of the New Jersey Supreme Court once confessed: “I don’t know what it means. I am stumped.” (Of course, he was talking about an insurance policy.) Efforts are often proposed to make the law’s language less worrisome and more humane. But, like the Catholic Church, so much of it comes from Latin, for God’s sake. Here is where we return to our opening question about tradition and current preference. Actually I appreciate Latin – like I appreciate the Mona Lisa. It’s not a dead language, really, but more like preserved in a cryogenic state if we need it. My favorite Latin legal phrase is nudum pactum (naked promise). If I ever start a band, I might name it ultra vires (beyond powers). But the everyday challenges faced by judges are squarely derived from the balance of what is meant by the language of the law and what is meant by the language of the world. My young friends often tell me they are “down with that” when they mean they like something. So when I hear it in my courtroom, I have to make the adjustment, dude. Just like when I hear “propinquity.”•

Judge David J. Dreyer has been a judge for the Marion Superior Court since 1997. He is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame and Notre Dame Law School. He is a former board member of the Indiana Judges Association. The opinions expressed are those of the author.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  2. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  3. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  4. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  5. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

ADVERTISEMENT