Yesterday marked the end, at least for now, of the trial in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, the high-profile case challenging Proposition 8’s ban on same-sex marriage in California. The trial unfolded over the past two and a half weeks in the San Francisco courtroom of Chief Judge Vaughn Walker (N.D. Cal.), who is hearing the case (without a jury).
How did it go? Who obtained the upper hand? Who will prevail when Judge Walker, after hearing closing statements in a few weeks, issues his ruling?
You tell us. Vote in our predictive poll. Let’s see what kind of wisdom can be found in crowds.
Some trial highlights and additional links, also after the jump.
Based on what we’ve read about the Prop 8 trial, it seems that the plaintiffs scored more points in the courtroom than the defendants. But we concede the possibility that the coverage may have skewed in favor of the plaintiffs, given possible media bias on this issue and the overall celebrity of the plaintiffs’ lead counsel, Ted Olson and David Boies. (This may constitute another argument in favor of cameras in the courtroom. Having a televised trial would allow us to judge for ourselves who made the better case, as opposed to having to rely on (potentially biased) news reporters.)
Unlike Dan Levine, who has been tweeting the trial and covering it for The Recorder, we haven’t been following the proceedings super-closely. But we have read a few recaps (links collected below), from which we’ve culled a collection of highlights.
* David Boies cross-examines political science professor Kenneth Miller:
Boies turned to the heart of Miller’s expertise: ballot initiatives. He quoted back to him from his own work, citing Miller’s observation that the legislative process maximized opportunities for “refinement, informed deliberation, consensus building and compromise,” while “the initiative process by its nature undermines them.”
Opus 2 Steps Up Its AI Game With Acquisition Of A Legal Tech Startup
With the addition of Uncover’s technology, the litigation software is delivering rapid innovation.
The initiative process is what brought about Prop 8. Miller tried to recover by essentially claiming that he was against the initiative process before he was for it, but the damage was done.
* Boies questions Hak-Shing William Tam, a Prop 8 proponent:
[Boies] asked about Tam’s claim that the Netherlands legalized polygamy and incest after same-sex marriage. “What gave you that idea,” Boies asked.
“It’s on the Internet,” Tam replied.
Here at AboveTheLaw.com, we are all in favor of believing what you read on the internet.
* Boies cross-examines David Blankenhorn, founder and president of the Institute for American Values:
Mr. Blankenhorn later drew a surprised response from spectators, many of whom seemed to be siding with the plaintiffs, when he said that historical instances of polygamy in places like China and India did not technically violate [one of his three rules for marriage] — that marriage is between two people.
“Each marriage is separate,” Mr. Blankenhorn said. “One man and one woman.”
Most Law Firms’ AI Strategies Have a Big Blind Spot. Here’s How One Am Law 200 Firm is Solving It.
Most law firms, big and small, that have adopted AI are making the same mistake: they bought a tool for their lawyers and called it a strategy.
Blankenhorn isn’t a lawyer, but he sure thinks like one. That may or may not be a compliment.
Of course, the Northern District of California is far from the last stop for Perry v. Schwarzenegger. The case will surely spawn an appeal to the Ninth Circuit — and, given that court’s liberal leanings, it would not be surprising to see a decision striking down Prop 8.
If that were to happen, then some on the U.S. Supreme Court might want to grant cert and smack down the renegade Ninth (all in a day’s work at One First Street). But would that actually happen? It’s unclear. The generally conservative Justice Kennedy often “goes rogue” when it comes to the gays — he wrote Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas, after all.
Then again, some supporters of same-sex marriage worry that AMK and his colleagues would not be willing to get that far ahead of public opinion (which, as reflected in the legislation and constitutional amendments of many states, still lines up against same-sex marriage). That’s a major theme of this long but interesting New Yorker article by Margaret Talbot, which asks: “Is it too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage?”
But we’re getting ahead of ourselves; we don’t have a trial court decision yet. Who do you think will prevail before Judge Walker?
Testimony wraps up in federal Prop. 8 trial [San Francisco Chronicle]
Same-Sex Marriage Case: The Post-Mortem [Bay Area Blog / New York Times]
Same-Sex Marriage Case, Day 12: The End (for Now) [Bay Area Blog / New York Times]
Boies at Play [New Yorker]
A Risky Proposal: Is it too soon to petition the Supreme Court on gay marriage? [New Yorker]
Prop. 8 Trial Wraps, Motions and Waiting to Follow [WSJ Law Blog]
Prop 8 Testimony Ends, Deliberations Loom [Business Insider]
Boies Lands Verbal Punches on Ballot Measure Backer During Proposition 8 Trial [The Recorder via Law.com]