James M. Redwine

Judicial

Luddites Lost

by Leave a Comment

Just recently, a 13-year-old boy captured a photograph of a young girl and used Artificial Intelligence to remove her clothing and make her normal image pornographic. Then he put his modified, false depiction on the internet and caused the girl great emotional distress.

In June 2025, some person or persons used AI to impersonate United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio and sent false messages to several foreign officials.

During the Sean Diddy Combs trial one of the jurors may have accessed internet information about the trial.

Can Americans rely upon their government through its legal system to afford them fair trials when false or inadmissible, unvetted information is readily available on a smart phone? The answer is, Yes! However, trial judges must apply the tools the various State Supreme Courts, Constitutions and statutes provide.

There are probably several ways for judges to approach the rapidly developing dilemmas of how jury trials are affected by Social Media. Three major theories are:

(1)       The ostrich method: pretend it does not exist. Well, it does, so ignoring it will not solve it;

(2)       The Luddite solution where the legal system strikes back with Draconian controls in hopes jurors will be frightened back to pre-internet behavior. Workers of the early 19th century tried to halt mechanization in an effort to save their jobs. The Luddites who refused to adapt to the Industrial Revolution were swept into the dustbin of history; or,

(3)       Adapt to the inevitable change in both technology and sociology.

State trial judges already have the education, training and legal tools to use the only rational approach to the irreversible momentum of the internet. We should call upon the lessons of thousands of years of history and our faith in our democratic system. Jurors, judges, the media and both real and artificial intelligence can operate a fair and efficient legal system using time-tested rules of due process applied with diligence and goodwill.

Technology may change but human nature has been formed over a few million years of hominoid fits and starts and two or three hundred thousand years of Homo sapiens experience and progress. And over about the past 250 years we have gone from gazing at the heavens to visiting them. Plus, over the past 100 years we have gone from curing polio and small pox to creating artificial limbs. Science has been good to us even if we take pause at the levels of death and destruction it has enabled. We just need to keep progressing before we exterminate ourselves and AI might be a huge boost in that regard.

So, how does the legal system deal with Social Media and Jurors? By remaining true to our time-tested principles and having confidence our citizens who are called for jury duty will also. As we know, people usually respond positively to positive treatment and ethically to expectations of ethical behavior. Are there plenty of bad exceptions, absolutely. However, judges have the tools to weed those potential jurors out and to guide and encourage sitting jurors to eschew extraneous influence from outside forces.

In the end, judges must adhere to their honored principles and have faith so will jurors. Most jurors want to be fair and most likely will be if judges give them proper guidance, such as the following instructions:

The parties are entitled to jurors who approach this case with open minds and agree to keep their minds open until a verdict is reached. Jurors must be as free as humanly possible from bias, prejudice or, sympathy. Jurors must not be influenced by preconceived ideas as to facts or as to law.  

… Until the conclusion of this trial, do not discuss this case with any other person, including family and friends. You should not read or listen to any media discussing this case nor research this case in any way, including through the internet or any other tools of technology. Nor should you use any of these means to communicate to others about the case. It is important that this case be decided solely on the evidence you receive in this courtroom.

Progress can be a huge benefit to us. We may not now be able to see the benefits, but we should approach the future relying on our lessons from the past.

 

What Is In Control?

by Leave a Comment

One of the first lectures I received in law school was about how jury trials had changed over about 2,500 years; they hadn’t. According to my law professor, if we budding attorneys had walked into the courtroom in Athens for the trial of Socrates in 399 B.C., we would have easily understood the proceeding. Socrates was charged with corrupting Athenian youth with his views on the prevalent religion and government. He was convicted by a jury of about 500 citizens. Socrates was prosecuted by three senators and he defended himself. In other words, that court of over 2,000 years ago functioned like most courts of the 21st century, until the advent of smart telephones, artificial intelligence and rapidly changing electronic technology.

Unlike the practice of medicine, according to our law professor, that a physician of modern times would not even recognize, until recently the legal profession stoically struggled to deliver justice about the same way our Stone Age progenitors did. As science reached for the stars, the Star Chamber was right at home with the law. Most lawyers, judges and juries sought just verdicts, but often did so with quill pens, arcane fixtures and cloistered proceedings. Well, those honored, if often questioned, days have recently crashed upon the shoals of instant and ubiquitous information and misinformation. And much as the art world and the defense industry are wringing their hands and racing to keep up with machines gone mad, the legal profession is struggling to preserve the First Amendment’s guarantees of Freedom of Speech and the Press along with the Sixth Amendment’s guarantees of Due Process and a Fair Trial.

For thousands of years societies have confidently relied upon jurors to hear cases without being influenced by prejudicial information from outside of the court. Today, judges cannot just order jurors to not read newspapers, or listen to radio or television stories about a case. Jurors in 2025 are just like virtually every other child, teenager, adult and elderly person; everyone has a smart phone to which they are addicted. All the judicial admonishments judges can think of will not defeat the deep-seated need by jurors to “tune in and turn on” and, most likely buy into, the often incorrect information about practically anything, including “facts” about an on-going case.

The Founding Fathers most feared centralized governmental power and believed the best defense to it was for the public to have almost unfettered Freedom of Speech and for the media to be almost immunized from governmental restraint. Of course, America’s legal system has adapted many times to changes in our society. It will surely find ways to deal with the internet. However, the age-old reliance on the omnipotence and wisdom of the trial judge’s instructions has already become as much of a relic as the pyramids. And, just as the pyramids still inspire us, our historically provident legal system probably will too.

However, we in the legal profession must face the reality that Facebook and its ilk have to be dealt with because the populace will not stand for them to be destroyed. Surely, if I were back in that first law school class today, the professor would evince a different perspective on 2025’s legal system.

Food Fight

by Leave a Comment

President Trump spoke to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday, March 04, 2025 for 99 minutes. His entrance to and exit from the podium each took about 15 minutes. The Cabinet, the Supreme Court and the Joint Chiefs of Staff were in attendance as were invited guests, members of the media and numerous interested observers. The proceedings were telecast to the world by several media outlets who commentated on the events. The Democratic Party’s selected responder, Senator Elissa Slotkin, spoke briefly after President Trump.

As the President entered the chamber numerous Democrat senators and house members turned their backs, displayed custom designed placards with anti-MAGA comments and did not applaud; virtually all Republican members applauded incessantly, cheered and arose to stand many times. On television, the effect was as if one-half of attendees were at the Super Bowl and the other half were at a funeral. The gathering looked like a combination of sycophants and official witnesses at an execution who alternated between tossing roses and brickbats.

My reaction was to be rhetorically reminded of food fights at summer camp. My guess is the only reason there was no general tossing of rotten eggs is due to the price. My overarching impression was: surely there is a better way for members of our national government to interact concerning issues. I will suggest a couple: The Executive Branch could remain in the West Wing while both houses of the Legislative Branch submit proposed bills for the President’s consideration. The Supreme Court could remain stoic unless called upon to resolve a Constitutional issue. The military could and should remain at each of their designated posts until and unless America needs defending as determined by Congress and the President.

There is no good reason to subject anyone to the burlesque show that taxpayers are paying trillions to endure. If Tuesday night was democracy in action, perhaps we need, at least, less action. I call for no more “Joint Sessions” of any kind. As our mothers made clear, “If you cannot play nice, you will not play”.

Honor

by Leave a Comment

Gentle Reader, I was recently invited to address a group of high school honor students. I prepared the following remarks and hope they and you find them worthy of your interest. The theme given for the ceremony for the honor students was, “Write your own story”.  I designed my remarks around that theme.

HONOR

“Honor Students, as you write your life’s story you really only need to keep in mind a few elemental rules.

First, remember you are fortunate to have your American birthright to always guide you. When our son, Jim, first went to the old Soviet Union in 1992 he found complete strangers would pick him and his fellow Americans out and ask them if they were Americans. Jim decided the Americans stood out because they were the ones always smiling.

Then, when I taught judges in Kiev, Ukraine and Volgograd, Russia and the country of Georgia that had once been in the Soviet Union, people would stop my wife, Peg, and me on the street and ask us about America. We simply stood out from those around us. The reason was we were happy and smiling, but most of the natives were dour and stern. What we decided was that we were happy because we Americans had options; our freedom of choice was the difference.

So, Honor Students, as you write your life’s story never lose sight of the essence of being an American, that is your freedom to choose your own path. Of course, your freedom of choice has always been part of your lives. You have learned it at home and in school.

While I learned countless lessons of immense value in high school, I will share just three with you. The first involved the United States Constitution. Now you might think someone who had been to several colleges and even law school might know the Constitution through those schools. However, my most indelible lesson in the U.S. Constitution came from my high school American history teacher.

One cold autumn day our teacher came to class without his regular plaid sport coat. He was wearing a short-sleeved shirt and a flowery tie. He asked us in the class, “Why do I have the right to wear this short-sleeved shirt?” Naturally, none of us had a clue. He called on me, “Redwine! You should know the answer. The 2nd Amendment, you know, the right to bare/bear arms”. And I never forgot the 2nd Amendment after that.

Then there was our principal who taught me a lesson in sentencing. As a judge for more than 40 years I have been called on to devise many sentences that are fair, follow the law and do good, not harm.

I have many times remembered the wisdom of my high school principal who devised a “sentence” that perfectly fit the crime, that is, the football players including me who got into an out-of-control snowball fight during a lunch hour.

Our principal had us line up outside his office and ordered us not to move or talk while we waited for him to deal with us one by one. We stood in line dreading our punishment for 2 hours until he came out of his office and said, “Alright boys, no more brawls, now go to practice”. I have often thought back on this fair and imaginative “sentence” when I have had to make a sentence comply with the law but show mercy too.

Another lesson that helped guide me through several difficult sociological dilemmas involving the fair and equal treatment of people who came before me in court, was taught to me by my two high school football coaches when we played a game against another high school in a nearby town.

After the game our coaches put us on the bus and we drove to a restaurant in that downtown. Now, I realize to you Honor Students today, segregation is like something from a foreign country and a by-gone age. I assure you it was real.

I did not go to school with African American kids until after Brown vs. The Topeka, Kansas Board of Education in 1954 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared “separate but equal” in U.S. education may have been separate, but it was not equal and it was unconstitutional even though it was written to be the law.

My high school integrated my freshman year in 1957 and we had 3 black players, called coloreds back then, on our football team. So, when we stopped at that restaurant after the game our whole team went in, but the restaurant owner refused to serve our black players. Our coaches said, “If you won’t serve our whole team, none of us will stay”. So, we all returned to the bus.

This lesson in choosing the harder right over the easier wrong made a life-time impression on me as to what choices really matter. This experience made a better judge, and better person of me. It also helped me to recognize the major difference between American judges and the many foreign judges I have observed and taught. Foreign judges often refuse to devise a way around an unjust written law, but American judges will choose the harder right over the easier wrong and apply a legally acceptable but fair alternative to a tough case.

So, Honor Students, please write your own story knowing you have the right to choose where you go and what you do, what you believe and what you find invalid.

As Professor Joseph Campbell who taught at Sarah Lawrence College said, there is only one unpardonable sin, “To be unaware”. Therefore, pay attention as you write your story, do not let your life pass you by.

Also, Socrates told the Honor Students of Athens 2,500 years ago, “The unexamined life is not worth living”. In other words, be curious, challenge the status quo. As Alexander Pope cautioned in his poem, A Little Learning, “Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring”. That is, do not be fooled by too little knowledge or those who espouse it.

The poet Robert Frost advised us to take the road less traveled, or as that great philosopher Yogi Berra said, “When you come to a fork in the road, take it”.

Honor Students, remember the sage advice of your mothers and “If you can’t say something nice, say nothing at all”.

And most importantly, as you write your own story, always “Choose the harder right over the easier wrong” and your life story will have a happy ending! If you follow these guideposts, I predict each of your life’s stories will be of great satisfaction to you and of great benefit to everyone else.

As Henry Wadsworth Longfellow said in his poem, A Psalm of Life, “Lives of great [people] all remind us, we can make our lives sublime and departing leave behind us, footprints on the sands of time”.

Honor Students, write your own story your own way and keep smiling!”

You Say You Want A Revolution

by Leave a Comment

Photo by Peg Redwine

The Beatles sang:

♪ You say you want a revolution
…
You say you’ll change the Constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me it’s the institution
Well, you know
You’d better free your mind instead ♪

I do not know why those British songsters were singing about changing America’s Constitution during the Viet Nam War. Perhaps they were just selling a song or perhaps they felt it was a return to 1776. Regardless, today in the United States it seems a lot of Americans seek to remake America in their own image and the quickest way is a revolution. Of course, not much thought may have gone into what a revolution would truly mean in 2025 et. seq.

On the other hand, James Madison of the small body and the gigantic brain gave the written word to the revolution he had just participated in and the possible future ones he wanted to prevent by designing a United States Constitution based on a theory that all humans seek to expand their power as much as they are allowed. Therefore, for a democracy to continue existing, the bedrock of our country had to be a government made up of separate functions controlled by competing separate and equal powers. As a people we have had a history of teetering from side to side with only occasionally tipping completely over to any one branch gaining too much power.

The Civil War broke out because all three branches chose conflict over compromise on the issues of slavery and the human rights of African Americans. On other visceral issues, such as Native American rights, Women’s right to vote, use of alcohol or marijuana or wars such as World Wars I and II, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq, we have managed to let the struggling of the separate governmental powers find a way to come out in an acceptable equilibrium.

We have had countless opportunities to lose our democracy but have eventually stepped back from the brink. The United States Supreme Court has taken more than one foray into excessive power, such as Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857). During Chief Justice Earl Warren’s reign (1953-1969) the Court’s ultra-liberal rulings had much of the public up in arms. There were even billboards on the highways calling for Warren’s impeachment.

And the Legislative Branch has had its attempts at being the conscience of America also. For example, Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy set himself up to be the ultimate determiner of what a “true American” was. During the era of “McCarthyism” in the 1940’s and 1950’s the American public generally bought into his “Red Scare” tactics until the facts overcame his allegations.

But it has usually been the Executive Branch where the abuse of power has been the most obvious. The most salient example was Franklin Delano Roosevelt who was president from 1933 until his death during his fourth term in 1945. Even though a great majority of both Congress and the American people objected to American involvement in WWII, Roosevelt manipulated the United States into the war. Of course, he had the aggression of Japan to help his argument.

It was Roosevelt’s long-term in office and some of his unpopular policies that brought about the 22nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution that forbids anyone from serving more than two terms as President. Although some supporters of President Donald Trump have advanced the possibility of an exception to this amendment for President Trump. Such moves on behalf of Donald Trump and the current makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court are raising concerns among anti-Trumpers. There exists the possibility that neither the Supreme Court nor the Legislature may provide a proper balance for our democracy as both may be biased in favor of President Trump, especially as about one-half of the electorate has supported him and his policies.

While a revolution may be extremely unlikely, so have been numerous other shifts in power in America throughout our history. There is no need yet to call for extraordinary action by any branch nor from the news media or the public. However, it is the fabric of our democracy that may be being tested once again. There is no harm in remaining true to the wisdom of our nation’s charter and there could be harm from failing to reference it.

Photo by Peg Redwine

A Teetering Balance

by Leave a Comment

Our federal democracy is seen as having three equal branches that keep our democracy by equally asserting restraints on one another. The Legislative Branch plays its part by having 435 representatives elected for 2-year terms by citizens throughout the country along with 100 senators elected for 6-year terms. These just over 500 individuals have many functions but they really have only one power, providing or restricting funds to themselves and to the other two branches of government, the Executive and Judicial Branches.

 The Executive Branch has thousands of functionaries but its most powerful executive is the President who directly and indirectly heads the military and countless other divisions of that diverse branch. Each of those often nameless bureaucracies has untold, often nameless, functionaries whose functions may hold the key to whether our government functions.

The Judicial Branch is easy to generally designate but much more difficult for the populace and the other two branches to corral as the Judicial Branch has generally defined itself since Marbury v. Madison in 1803. In fact, the Judicial Branch jealously and vigorously spends much of its time struggling to make sure the other two branches do not infringe on its powers, the chief of which is to define what the law allows the other two branches to do.

This theory of a three equal and separate foundation of our democracy works well as long as the powers of each branch remain truly separate and fairly balanced and each branch is composed of greatly dispersed functionaries. It is not a novel observation that our great democracy has remained democratic, mostly, because it remains diverse, dispersed and divided. When power becomes concentrated in a particular individual or individuals or branch, democracy suffers and internecine competitions may arise. Such theoretical and rhetorical battles can, as our Civil War proved, break out into real battles as one or two or even all three of the branches seek dominance.

Currently, we have members of each branch asserting efforts to imprint upon our whole country the vision of a few executives, followed by a few judges, both entities being subject to the status of financial hostages from a powerful few in the Legislative Branch. Now, some may analyze our current imbroglio as evidence our three-branch theory is simply working itself out in practice. That could be true. However, I hypothesize our Founding Fathers may have neglected the Fourth Branch of our social/governmental structure, the citizenry. Normally we have an electorate that, while unhappy perhaps, still finds a way to “soldier on”.

Our current social intercourse pits about one-half of America against the other half, sort of like the times of theDred Scott v. Sandford case of 1857 that led to the Civil War. Much as when a large portion of the United States agreed with the U.S. Supreme Court that African Americans were not citizens while another large portion disagreed. Many Americans today either agree or disagree with Birthright Citizenship and several other issues. One President and at least one federal judge come down on opposite sides of this citizenship issue and probably several others.

Such matters being seen diametrically opposite by each of two of our branches and both branches awaiting input from the Legislative and more importantly the public, creates a situation where our national soul may be at war with itself. What is called for is much more equal and reasonable input from each branch, especially that Fourth Branch, the populace.