review. The purpose of an offer is to ap- prise the trial court of the nature of the evidence proposed to be introduced, in order that it may know the precise ques- tion to be passed on. It is often difficult to decide upon the sufficiency of an of- fer, but here the question of the court shows that the court understood just what the nature of the proposed evi- dence was … The utmost frankness to the court is required from counsel prac- ticing at the bar. Equal frankness is due from the court to counsel practicing at the bar. The majority holds that, if the court below did not mean to be under- stood in the way above indicated, coun- sel should have been informed about it. The majority does not in any way recede from former holdings regarding the suf- ficiency of offers of evidence, but sim- ply says that in the peculiar circumstanc- es of this case, no further offer was re- quired.71
Chief Justice Watson wrote the major- ity opinion in Woodhouse v. Woodhouse (1925), and added a concurring opinion of his own, objecting to the majority’s decision to set the verdict aside and order a new tri- al. This is a curiosity in itself, as it shows a dissent within a majority opinion. Writing of himself in the third person, he explained,
Respecting the former, he is of the opin- ion that the record shows the sums to which the verdict was reduced are so manifestly excessive as to be clearly un- reasonable, and consequently the fail- ure of the court to make such further re- duction as was sufficient to relieve the verdict of such excessiveness was an abuse of discretion. As to the latter, he would find that the Juryman Martin ex- pressed the opinion set out in the peti- tion, entitling the defendants to a new trial. In these two respects and to that extent he dissents.72
Emotions
ger, hatred, love, and compassion,” ac- cording to Thomas Hobbes.73
A good judge puts aside all “feare, an- Yet some of
that shines through in even the most stal- wart judges. It is called dicta when appel- lants want to demean it, but in many cases when a judge writes from the heart, the law quickens into life, and inspires us with its promise. Watson was a Victorian who lived through the Progressive Era. His portrait at the Supreme Court reveals a firmness of vis- age and restrained lips. His blue eyes, be- hind the wire frames, look at you with a seri- ousness that is penetrating enough to make you want to look down after a minute or two. He is looking into your argument, but
you will not be able to discern what he is thinking. In 1905, Judge Watson wrote the major- ity opinion in Rogers v. State, denying Mary Rogers’ appeal for a new trial over her at- torney’s objection to a verdict made in spite of her low intelligence, which he maintained was material to the issue of insanity. Rejec- tion of the appeal was Mary’s last hope be- fore her execution. He wrote:
Upon consideration of the evidence in- troduced at the trial and of the affida- vits produced in support of this peti- tion, we can have no reasonable doubt that the petitioner at the time of the homicide had the mental ability to dis- tinguish right from wrong, to fully com- prehend the nature of the act she was about to commit, and that she had suffi- cient will power to enable her to refrain from committing the crime. She delib- erately exerted her will power to com- mit it. She as deliberately planned the theory of suicide to conceal the crime; and it was to this end that she told Mrs. Perham and Leon that they were to tes- tify at the inquest as she wanted them to. Her own position at the inquest was one of ignorance of the means of her husband’s death in the hope that the theory of suicide would be adopt- ed. She had a sound and healthy mind
14
THE VERMONT BAR JOURNAL • FALL 2011
www.vtbar.org
Ruminations: A Hero Once, a Judge for Life
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40