Prodigal y Daughter
From the Volokh Conspiracy, via google alerts and an anonymous tipster:
Congratulations to Recent Boalt Hall [g]raduate Carolyn Zabrycki, whose student article (Toward a Definition of "Testimonial": How Autopsy Reports Do Not Embody the Qualities of a Testimonial Statement, 96 Cal. L. Rev. 1093 (2008)) was cited three times -- and seemingly significantly relied on -- by Justice Kennedy's dissent in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts (pdf).Congratulations, indeed!
Labels: CLR, Grammar Snarks, SCOTUS, Shiny Gold Stars
posted by Patrick Bageant at 9:34 AM
14 Comments:
woo hoo, CZ!
That's an awesome accomplishment.
Two other tid-bits:
1. I think it's safe to say the genesis for the article was David Sklansky's Fall 2006 evidence final (for those in the class, it should bring back memories). From Sklansky to Carolyn to Kennedy. The law works in mysterious ways!
2. Kennedy's opinion sort of slights Carolyn's authorship, citing only as "Comment, Toward a Definition..." without identifying the author. Yet in CLR, we sign our notes, and BB 16.1 says unequivocally that the author of a signed student note should be cited in any reference to the piece. Is Kennedy (or, more likely, a clerk jealous of not having his or her own work cited) too ashamed to be relying on student work to give full credit, or if this just S. Ct. protocol? If so, it's weak sauce.
Regardless, this is cool cool stuff.
IIRC, there is a short fuse process for asking the court to correct small typos, etc. maybe they'd add her name.
That is awesome. I wonder if there's another recent graduate somewhere out there hanging her head in shame because Clarence Thomas cited her work in his dissent arguing for legal warrantless strip searches of 13 year-old girls.
The scary thing is that Patrick has a google alert set up for every Boaltie who's graduated in the past three years.
"Prodigal" means recklessly extravagant or charactarized by wasteful spending. It comes from the Parable of the Prodigal Son, which is about a young man who leaves his family and squanders his fortune.
I think it is often misused in the way Patrick misused it, perhaps because "prodigal" is confused with "prodigy," which is something else altogether.
Woah, I had no idea. That's actually pretty cool -- thanks!
(and, sorry Carolyn! I'm sure you spend with widsom and dicipline!)
I don't think Patrick necessarily misued the term (although maybe he misunderstood).
I know my bible, and I think the point of the parable was how glad the father was to have his son return, regardless of their spotty past. ("The prodigal son returns.")
In that sense, I think you can use "prodigal son" for any long-lost former friend/neighbor/relative/disciple who returns or even becomes notable. Don't see why it wouldn't work for a former boaltie in the news.
Anonymous at 10:35 says:
In CLR, we sign our notes, and BB 16.1 says unequivocally that the author of a signed student note should be cited in any reference to the piece. Is Kennedy (or, more likely, a clerk jealous of not having his or her own work cited) too ashamed to be relying on student work to give full credit, or if this just S. Ct. protocol? If so, it's weak sauce.
You are assuming, incorrectly, that the Supreme Court uses the Bluebook. The Supreme Court has used its own internal manual of style for many decades, long before some law students got together and created the Bluebook. The Supreme Court's internal manual of style generally gives less credit to authors than the Bluebook does. For example, when Professor Murphy's article was cited in Justice Alito's concurring opinion in the DNA case last week, it was cited as just "Murphy," not "Erin Murphy." This has nothing to do with what Justice Alito wanted, or his clerk; it has everything to do with the Supreme Court's internal style manual.
Anonymous at 2:14 speaks the truth.
It's likely that none of the Justices' law school notes (for those who wrote one) were signed.
I remember a year or two ago where Ginsburg repeatedly cited to her own Note...
CZ is my hero. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home