Jim Murphy, the Chair Emeritus of the federal District of Rhode Island’s litigation academy (I just made that title up, but it seems appropriate), is renowned for his stirring lectures during academy programs. Like all faculty of the litigation academy, Mr. Murphy is a volunteer. He has attended all (or nearly all) of the academy’s many programs over the years. Equipped with a booming baritone, and in firm command of syntactical subtleties (not to mention his lawyerly fashion sense), Mr. Murphy has a knack for drawing on his vast experience to turn pedestrian topics into pedagogical tours de force. Along with his verbal skills, Mr. Murphy’s use of the communicative power of art transforms his lectures into multi-layered masterpieces. To Mr. Murphy, it seems perfectly normal to drive home an obscure point about civil procedure with an analogy to French Impressionist paintings. And it works.
With the federal District of Rhode Island’s recent announcement of its latest academy program on expert witness direct and cross examination (to be held Oct. 10-12), another installment of the Magique de Murphy is likely in the offing, and it’s worth taking a moment to reflect on the influence of art over the law.
One of the most straightforward reminders of art in the law is the portrait of each recently retired judge that hangs in the judges’ former courtrooms at the federal courthouse in Rhode Island. By tradition, a judge’s former law clerks commission a painting that is unveiled at the judge’s retirement. The painting is hung in the courtroom, and there it sits, not only to add an extra air of solemnity, but also to remind all the judges who come after. One of the strongest themes in the law is stare decisis, which loosely translates as not disturbing that which is settled. The sitting judges are reminded to respect legal precedent under the watchful eyes of their predecessors.
The influence of art is also woven into the architecture of the courthouse. Courthouses, like old bank buildings, are designed to signify permanence, respect and importance. It’s hard not to get goosebumps climbing up the steps of the United States Supreme Court. It’s a beautiful building that reflects its important institutional role and denotes its public character by welcoming the public through grand entrance (that is, until someone decided in 2010 that everyone has to go through a side entrance). The best courthouses and courtrooms are works of art. They are functional, but part of their function is based on the message they convey through their design. Well-designed courtrooms like Courtroom 1 of the federal courthouse or the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s courtroom bring out the best in everybody.
Perhaps the most subtle power of art is its ability to make us reflect on the law itself. A few months ago, the Rhode Island School of Design’s art museum (free admission on Sundays!) had an interactive exhibit shown in the photo above. Museum-goers were encouraged to stand in a painted zone, and during that time, they declared and agreed that the U.S. Constitution did not apply to them. The RISD exhibit seems simple enough, but its simplicity belies the many issues it raises about the meaning of the law in public life (not to mention the visceral reaction to the exhibit, as reflected by the young individuals in the photo above).
The RISD exhibit is spot on in the sense that people decide to waive their constitutional rights all the time. For example, you can waive your Fourth Amendment rights and consent to an otherwise unconstitutional search. Or you can waive your Seventh Amendment right to a jury trial. In these cases, you’ve agreed that constitutional protections will not apply to you.
On another level, the RISD exhibit is a fictional world not tethered to reality. When defending a claim, litigants don’t have the right to decide that a law doesn’t apply to them. If, for example, you are prosecuted for a crime, you are virtually certain to lose if you make an argument that you never consented to the United States’ laws and therefore they do not apply to you. This is a common argument made by adherents to the so-called “sovereign nation” or “sovereign citizen” movement, and they rarely if ever achieve success in the courtroom.
Nevertheless, the notion that everyone in the United States consented to the application of the law and the Constitution is a slippery concept. No one alive today voted to ratify the United States Constitution. Many laws that are still on the books were passed before many of us were born or could vote. And yet the laws and the Constitution apply to everybody. That’s the reality because there is no viable alternative. Chaos would ensue if everyone was required to reaffirm the Constitution or federal laws.
These are just some of the ways that people like Jim Murphy and the RISD art museum generate questions and discussion on the meaning of the law. There are surely other discussion topics not listed here. That’s the beauty of art.