Evidence Class instead of Bike Rides 

During the 1998-99 academic year, I was a visiting third-year at Stanford Law School. I heralded from a law school located in the gray climes of New Haven. That said, I have a rather shocking confession to make: after orchestrating a wily escape from the endless Northeastern winter, I actually rebuffed the perpetual California sunshine to attend all (well, nearly all) of my third-year courses. 

Why did I forgo scenic bike rides and pickup soccer games when I had a job lined up and my grades didn’t matter? Because the teaching at Stanford was first-rate. And right there at the apex was Professor George Fisher’s evidence course. [See “Compelling Evidence,” Spring 2003, pp. 8-12.] 

I truly appreciated the passion that Fisher brought to the subject, the clarity with which he presented the material, yes, even Rule 404(b)-the extensive preparation he devoted to each class, and the fairness and openness that he extended to his students. I was happy to see that he won the John Bingham Hurlbut Award for Excellence in Teaching for the second time in his career. Given the amount of time and energy he devoted to his class, it is a wonder that he was able to write a book and run a clinic “on the side.”

Samantha Graff

Seizing Power: 1952 or 2000? 

When I saw the “Seizing Power” headline in the Spring 2003 issue, accompanied by the smiling faces of Chief Justice William Rehnquist ’52 (AB ’48, AM ’48) and Associate Justice Sandra Day O’Connor ’52 (AB ’50), my first thought was, Aha! Stanford Law School is finally confronting the harsh reality that these two “honored” graduates staged a judicial coup d’etat when they and three colleagues stopped the 2000 election and put George IV. Bush into the White House. 

As I write, in April 2003, the effects of their act of usurpation are emerging with horrific, literally murderous force. The president, who was rejected in 2000 by most voters but preferred by the judges, now makes war on American constitutional values as well as on the international rule of law, raining death on another people and glorying in America’s supposed right to do so. 

This, I thought, was a fitting moment for Stanford Lawyer and the Law School to begin a debate on whether we ought so regularly to honor these two judges, these putschists. But alas, no. The seizure of power that was being debated at the Law School and in your pages was the Steel Seizure case of 51 years ago, not the blow to American democracy delivered by our illustrious alumni two years earlier. 

Mitchell Zimmerman ’79 

The author is one of the coordination of Law Professors for the Rule of Law, a group of 673 US law school teachers who condemned the five justices comprising the majority in Bush v. Gore for “acting as political proponents for candidate Bush, not as judges.”

No Longer “More England than England” 

The cover story about New Zealand Chief Justice Sian Elias, JSM ’72 [“Hail to the Chief,” Spring 2003, pp. 20-27], conveys both the deep changes in New Zealand law since the 1970s and the personality and skill of the woman who has played center stage. 

As an expatriate New Zealander living in Canada, I have mostly seen these events from a remove, but occasional return visits (often highlighted by relaxing stays with Sian and her husband, Hugh Fletcher) have revealed their significance. As New Zealand loses its “More England than England” character, it seems more self-confident, though perhaps less of a curiosity to outsiders. What appears retained, however, is a sense of fairness and a willingness to experiment with bold new ideas, such as radical tort law reform and proportional representation. 

Both as an advocate and a judge, the ChiefJustice has helped build the framework around which many changes-especially those affecting Maori-have developed in New Zealand law. Like Canada, New Zealand has started to recognize the customs of its indigenous populations within its legal system. This will be a long and complex process, but not an impossible one if both sides realize the overall gains to be achieved in so doing. 

The article’s author, Todd Woody, who interviewed me last year for the piece, may overstate my activist credentials, but he does a superb job of capturing the spirit of Sian Elias, a woman whose intellect is matched only by her sense of humor and style. 

Bob Paterson, JSM ’72

A Word to the Young 

There is the old tune that goes: “California here I come, right back where I started from; California I’ve been blue, since I’ve been away from you.” Substitute the word “Stanford” for “California,” and well, you all will get the point. 

It is the end of April, and tomorrow I am headed south from my home on Whidbey Island in Washington, via Mesquite, Nevada, to Stanford. Once there, I will look up Linda Wilson, the coordinator for class notes, who is the only person I still know on campus 62 years after my graduating. I look forward to the visit, as it will stir many memories. 

As my father used to say, “When you are young, you think you have all the time in the world to accomplish life’s miracles, but you don’t.” As I walk the campus, I will think about one classmate who was terminally ill but insisted on continuing with his law studies only to pass on during his second year. I also will remember John Haffner, who finished law school with honors, but lost his life during World War II while operating a tank. 

May I pass on to the current future lawyers, now studying at Stanford Law School, the above advice of my father, in paraphrased form: Make good use of all your time. 

Elster Haile ’41

EDITOR’S NOTES 

Chris Wright ’80, a partner at Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis in Washington, D.C., should be added to the list of Stanford lawyers involved in the Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of the University of Michigan’s admissions policies (“Cardinal Arguments on University of Michigan Admissions Policy,” Spring 2003, p. 7). Wright was counsel of record for the Michigan Black Law Alumni Society and filed an amicus curiae brief on the group’s behalf supporting the university in Grutter v. Bollinger. 

A brief about Stanford Law Professor John Donohue’s and Yale Law Professor Ian Ayres’s new findings that laws permitting people to carry concealed weapons are not likely to cause a decrease in crime (“Ready, Aim, Calculate,” Spring 2003, p. 5) inaccurately attributed the source of a quote from John Lott, Jr., the scholar whose conclusions Donohue and Ayres dispute. Lott’s remark dismissing the Donohue-Ayres critique appears in a paper that he co authored with Florenz Plassman and John Whitley that was posted in January 2003 on the Social Science Research Network website. The quote is not from the April issue of Stanford Law Review, which includes a similar comment in an article credited to Plassman and Whitley but not Lott. 

The Law School rolled out a newly designed website in April. If you have not already visited, please check out www.law.stanford.edu for the latest news about faculty, students, alumni, and events. Along with streaming video of recent conferences, listings of new jobs, and links to Law School publications, it also offers the exact temperature on campus!