Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

dcmacdaddy · Mar 22, 2005, 09:25 PM

Simey,

What does the phrase "conscience of the court" mean in regards to law and/or a trial?
I am reading a short story by Zora Neale Hurston with that phrase as it's title and a big part
of the story is the main character's trial. I am inclined to think it has some significance to
the story but I don't have a clue what the phrase means in regards to jurisprudence.

Thanks!

dcmacdaddy · Mar 23, 2005, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by dcmacdaddy:
Simey,

What does the phrase "conscience of the court" mean in regards to law and/or a trial?
I am reading a short story by Zora Neale Hurston with that phrase as it's title and a big part
of the story is the main character's trial. I am inclined to think it has some significance to
the story but I don't have a clue what the phrase means in regards to jurisprudence.

Thanks!

Bumped because I see Simey is online.

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 23, 2005, 09:35 AM

Sorry, I missed it before. The only context I know that uses something like that is when a court of appeals reviews a damage award. The standard is the "shocks the concience of the court" test -- which isn't a very definable standard. Basically if the award outrages the judges, they can reduce it, but they are only supposed to do so if it is really "shocking."

I suppose more broadly it might mean that the concience of the court is their general duty to see justice done and use their discretion wisely to that end. That's just a guess though.

Maybe someone with more experience than me would know. Don't forget, I am just a baby lawyer. I haven't even graduated school yet (but soon, so very soon).

dcmacdaddy · Mar 23, 2005, 10:02 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Sorry, I missed it before. The only context I know that uses something like that is when a court of appeals reviews a damage award. The standard is the "shocks the concience of the court" test -- which isn't a very definable standard. Basically if the award outrages the judges, they can reduce it, but they are only supposed to do so if it is really "shocking."

I suppose more broadly it might mean that the concience of the court is their general duty to see justice done and use their discretion wisely to that end. That's just a guess though.

Maybe someone with more experience than me would know. Don't forget, I am just a baby lawyer. I haven't even graduated school yet (but soon, so very soon).

OK. That helps somewhat. Certainly the idea of judicial discretion to "see justice done" would apply to the context of the story and the trial that took place within it.

Background to the story

***A southern black maid assaults a white man who tries to reclaim some
possessions from the residence of her mistress who is out of town.
***The maid is found NOT guilty of an assault she freely admits to committing.
***The conscience of the court was employed to see that justice was done.
In this case justice IS served by not punishing the black woman because
she was defending the domain of the genteel southern white woman.

The story turns on assumptions of both race AND class and how in the strictly hierarchical culture of the early 20th century South class trumps race. So, that the low-class black maid, as social representative of the high-class white matriarch, is allowed to "act" white in this circumstance and get away with it.

The story is actually a critique of this practice of granting blacks rights equal to whites only when they might be standing in as a proxy for a white person. It is a general critique of the idea that social definition for blacks was only in the context of their relationship to white people. It criticizes the idea that blacks can't have any self-generated social identity/definition.

cpt kangarooski · Mar 23, 2005, 10:14 AM

SimeyTheLimey--

Maybe someone with more experience than me would know. Don't forget, I am just a baby lawyer. I haven't even graduated school yet (but soon, so very soon).

???

Are you working on an LL.M. or S.J.D. or something?

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 23, 2005, 10:18 AM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
SimeyTheLimey--

???

Are you working on an LL.M. or S.J.D. or something?

JD. Why?

If you are thinking about the amount of time (4 years, not 3), it is because I decided to enroll in an evening program so I could work full time as a law clerk. It worked out for me, but BOY am I burned out with school.

ranga · Mar 23, 2005, 09:14 PM

Funny you should ask about this phrase. My contracts professor was talking about this phrase the other day. I think I understood the gist of it, but I might have this all wrong.

I think this phrase comes from the fact that in England there used to be two court systems, the courts of law and the courts of equity (chancery?). The courts of law ruled based on the principles of law (acts, statutes, precedent, &c.) while the courts of equity ruled on "fairness."

Usually what would happen is that a person would lose in a court of law and then show up in a court of equity and ask the chancellor to bar the winning party from enforcing their rights at law. In order to win in equity you basically have to convince the chancellor that a grave injustice was done such that it would shock the conscience to enforce the judgment at law. Generally you had to show things like how badly you would be harmed by enforcement, whether you came to the court w/ "clean hands", how badly the opposing party would be harmed, whether the opposing party has acted in bad faith, &c.

If you convinced the chancellor he would issue an order telling the cts of law that they could not enforce the judgment against you even though the judgment was perfectly legal.

I'm not sure about England but we no longer have separate cts of law and equity. All cts are able to decide cases on principles of either law or equity, but most cts seem to prefer deciding cases on law rather than equity.

--ranga

cpt kangarooski · Mar 23, 2005, 11:15 PM

SimeyTheLimey--
Well, you said you were a lawyer, but hadn't graduated yet, and that didn't make a great deal of sense. Now, we're not going to have any UPL problems with you, I trust. Not so close to your getting out.

Anyway, school is a pain in the ass, but I can't help but think that it's got to be better than the real world with its billable hour quotas, rife potential for malpractice, etc.

--cpt (who is licensed, and still in school, but for an LL.M.)

shiny · Mar 24, 2005, 12:21 AM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
SimeyTheLimey--
Well, you said you were a lawyer, but hadn't graduated yet, and that didn't make a great deal of sense. Now, we're not going to have any UPL problems with you, I trust. Not so close to your getting out.

Anyway, school is a pain in the ass, but I can't help but think that it's got to be better than the real world with its billable hour quotas, rife potential for malpractice, etc.

--cpt (who is licensed, and still in school, but for an LL.M.)

Nah, just hang your own shingle and make your own hours.

- J.D. and working for myself (that is why I have time to hang on MacNN)

SimeyTheLimey · Mar 24, 2005, 04:50 AM

Originally posted by cpt kangarooski:
SimeyTheLimey--
Well, you said you were a lawyer, but hadn't graduated yet, and that didn't make a great deal of sense. Now, we're not going to have any UPL problems with you, I trust. Not so close to your getting out.

Oh, don't be silly. I posted what I posted precisely to counter people's misapprehensions (look at the thread title).