Rethinking the Law School Approach

-- By JiadaiLin - 23 Feb 2010

Introduction and a Purpose

In the early hours of April 20, 1989, a white Ivy-League educated woman was found raped and nearly beaten to death in a Central Park ravine. Within 24 hours, New York City Police had in custody five colored teenagers who belonged to a larger youth gang responsible for a series of random assaults in the park. At the station, all five teens confessed their guilt on videotape and were later convicted at trial. The case was soon forgotten by the media until thirteen years later, when a man stepped forward to identify himself as the solo rapist from that fateful night. DNA evidence confirmed his guilt and the five teenagers from a decade ago, now men, were released.

This case is famously known as the Central Park jogger case. It captured my attention in 2002 when the second half of the saga played out in the media. Like many others who commented, I wondered: how could the justice system bring about such injustice?

In this essay, I will revisit the Central Park jogger case from the perspective of a law student. I present two realizations which can shed light on how law school should be approached differently. The ultimate goal is to suggest an approach geared towards creating happier law students and better practitioners down the road.

The First Realization

The legal system will not always bring about justice.

Most law students realize that there is no single normative “justice” and there is no definite right or wrong in many situations. Even if we assume that justice is defined statutorily, however, the legal system will still not always deliver it.

I want to focus on one tangible piece of evidence in the Central Park jogger case: the defendants’ confessions. While the racial and class tensions at play may be too complex for this discussion, the defendants were ultimately responsible for the most destructive evidence against them. Why the five teenagers lied is probably based on social and psychological factors more than the law. White police officers were pressured by a concerned public to push harder for guilty confessions. Detectives dragged questioning on for hours and informed a teenager that his DNA had been found on the victim’s clothing when it had not been. These methods of interrogation, aimed at teasing out a certain type of response, are not particularly uncommon. Sometimes, these methods are effective in manipulating the guilty to confess. Other times, they successfully manipulate the innocent to confess.

Cases like the Central Park jogger case rarely make it into 1L casebooks. The case came out “wrong” based on arguably the most basic (though not simple) factors: the facts. In casebooks, on the other hand, most decisions are based on substantive legal issues. Appellate judges are constantly asking: was there enough intent/reasonableness/mens rea, etc.? While these considerations are important and sometimes dispositive, it is delusional to think that they are always so. It is important to realize that casebooks only cover one side of the legal system. Often in the real world, cases turn on the nitty-gritty processes that can determine a case before it is even in court. Once this reality is in check, the 1L student can realistically approach studying the law.

A Change in Mindset

Law school is structured in a way that weakens instead of nurtures a lawyer’s social intuition. Most law school learning entails sitting at a desk with an open casebook. The process becomes one of reading, memorizing, and rationalizing conclusions. There is very little actual person-to-person interaction or sympathy involved. This process effectively places the student in the realm of abstract fact patterns and ideas instead of the realm of people, where real lawyering occurs.

It is easy to forget that behind every case there are the stories real people.

The case of the Central Park Jogger stirs emotions, something that few cases in casebooks can do. It is relatable. It occurred relatively recently in Central Park, where we have probably all spent a few lazy Sunday afternoons. The Jogger could have been a friend, a sister, or even ourselves. On the other hand, the defendants could have been as well. This particular case begs the question: what if that were me?

This is a crucial question because the legal profession is supposed to be a social one. A lawyer must be sympathetic to advise or advocate for a client. Without this kind of human connection, the lawyer will not earn the trust of his client and a sense of purpose is lost. The lawyer will want to win the case for the sake of winning the case, and not for the sake the lives involved. The first year of law school fuels the misconception that lawyering is about the law and learning should focus on the law. Understanding rules of law is certainly necessary, but in the real world lawyering is about understanding people. To better prepare for being a lawyer, each case studied should be thought of as an example of the law as well as how the law has been adapted to and affected the people involved.

Conclusion and a Proposal

The original goal of this essay was to find an approach to become happier law students and ultimately better lawyers. Stated differently, the goal was to make the most out of the law school experience. The first step is becoming aware of the reality that the legal system is intertwined with other social factors. In essence, cases are not decided in theoretical vacuums and thus we cannot think of them in those terms. Secondly, the law should be approached as the study of people instead of rules. I believe that these changes in attitude towards studying can bring a sense of purpose to the 1L year that is currently lacking. I also believe that this shift will create more sympathetic and astute lawyers in the future. Ultimately, the elusive skill of “thinking like a lawyer” may simply be the skill of being able to understand the perspective of just about anyone.