« Are Law Reviews Acquiring Institutional Memories? | Main | Ignorance and Reason in the Grasso-NYSE Case »
Thursday, April 27, 2006
"Da Vinci Code" Puzzle in a Judicial Opinion
This article in the NY Times about the puzzle Justice Peter Smith has embedded in his ruling in the recent copyright case involving The Da Vinci Code is fun, and it looks like nobody has solved the puzzle yet. One notable part of the story is that apparently nobody even noticed the Smith Code until he tipped a Times reporter off to it in an email exchange.
One occasionally hears reports of judges including fun elements in their opinions--a little dry humor, an opinion written in verse. But I wish it happened more often; to me, humor or creativity in a judicial ruling is a welcome admission that the decisionmaker is a real person, even though he or she wields a great deal of power.
Posted by Gowri on April 27, 2006 at 08:27 PM in Article Spotlight | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef00d8342633a853ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "Da Vinci Code" Puzzle in a Judicial Opinion:
» Fun! Fun! Fun! In The High Court Of Justice, Chancery Division from Concurring Opinions
Mr. Justice Peter Smith, the British judge hearing the Da Vinci Code copyright case, has issued an opinion which contains some sort of hidden message. Italic letters in the first seven paragraphs spell out "Smithy Code." In subsequent paragraphs, other... [Read More]
Tracked on Apr 28, 2006 12:24:35 AM
Comments
I guess I wasn't really imagining humor in the form of making fun of litigants, which I wholeheartedly agree is a problem. I was imagining things along the lines of what Justice Smith tried (unsuccessfully) to do, which don't seem to come at the expense of either party. Jokes can be made, or interesting anecdotes told, that aren't directed at the litigants, much less mocking them.
But perhaps even things like an embedded puzzle still tend to give the impression that the whole case is not being taken seriously? I didn't think this impression would generally be created in the absence of other problems, such as rude courtroom behavior and poorly explained rulings, but my intuition on that could be wrong.
I also absolutely agree with anon that jokey stuff in opinions can represent and reinforce the rather pervasive problems of judicial ego and delusions of self importance. But I think that being ultra serious can also feed judicial ego and entitlement. It seems that our intuitions about the empirics of this differ, but not our sense of the dynamics to consider.
In any case, maybe we can all agree on the fact that it seems to be the rare judge who knows how to do this in a sensitive and successful way.
Posted by: gowriramachandran | Apr 28, 2006 5:14:41 PM
I don't know, Gowri. I'm a big fan of warped humor generally, my humorless feminism nothwithstanding, but I'd hate to be the attorney who not only lost, but whose client got mocked in the adverse opinion. It likely makes the losing party feel like the judge did not take the case seriously, and that just isn't a good thing in my book. My area is intellectual property, and there are many opinions in IP cases with embedded humor I find troubling. For example, though I thought he reached the right outcome in the Barbie case (TM suit by Mattel against Danish band Aqua that commercially released song "Barbie Girl") I though Kozinski's jokes about Barbie were fairly inappropriate. Mattel deserved to lose, but sheesh, Kozinski's sneering "humorous" contempt for their product line was a little much for me.
Posted by: Ann Bartow | Apr 28, 2006 4:29:39 PM
The point is that, although judidical opinions don't have to be dry or poorly written, little attempts at humor are usually a bad idea for a couple reasons.
First, it's unfair and disrespectful to litigants if it appears that judges are in it for the kicks. People understand winning or losing, but they don't understand not being taken seriously or not having a fair shake in court, which are two thoughts that may be prompted by judicial humor.
Second, we don't need to feed judicial egos. Court proceedings should not exist to entertain judges or bring more attention to them. Judges have tremendous power, as you mentioned, Gowri. In my view, one way to keep that power in check is to reinforce at every turn the reality that the business of courts is serious business. Judicial humor tends to blur that reality.
Posted by: anon | Apr 28, 2006 4:21:45 PM
That is really sad and embarrassing that he messed up the encoding. Maybe increased judicial awareness of personal limitations is the first priority.
Posted by: gowriramachandran | Apr 28, 2006 2:36:38 PM
The answer was leaked, and it was trivial, and if this is the best we're going to get, count my vote for straight opinions, with once in a blue moon fun like Kozinski's movie title embedding. The judge screwed up the actual encoding, making it insoluble, then leaked the solution. Color me unenthused at the event.
Spoiler? Why, yes. Smith Code at Wikipedia.
See also Patterico and at Volokh.
Smithy Code - JACKIEFISHERWHOAREYOUDREADNOUGHT, ("Jackie Fisher who are you? Dreadnought")
Posted by: Eh Nonymous | Apr 28, 2006 2:25:15 PM
Yikes, I never meant to imply that every judicial opinion, regardless of the case, should have jokes in it. Gross insensitivity of the sort anon describes is probably not too common in published opinions, but at least in oral rulings I'm sure there are some terrible examples. Maybe the point is that if judges feel free to be a little silly in some cases, they'll inevitably feel more free to make cruel jokes elsewhere?
Posted by: gowriramachandran | Apr 28, 2006 1:40:59 PM
Yeah, we need more humor and "creativity" in judicial opinions. I especially like it when judicial opinions make fun of criminal defendants who are being sent away for a stretch of hard time. Or when courts take the effort to get in a good ribbing of a hapless pro se plaintiff. Nothing impresses me more! What a great idea!!
Posted by: anon | Apr 28, 2006 11:28:13 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.