Book Reviews

EVIDENCE MATTERS: SCIENCE, we later seek to gather more facts and clarity I’ll mention just one of the many hotly PROOF, AND TRUTH on the subject, this 90 percent figure serves contested issues at the trial. Two police IN THE LAW as our “prior.” officers testified that they saw Sacco put BY SUSAN HAACK Now, in this population (P), bike owner- his hand under his coat when they arrived Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 2014. ship is much less prevalent than automobile to arrest him. They interpreted this gesture 432 pages, $34.99. ownership. We will say that among those in as his effort to draw his revolver. The pros- P who own an automobile, 10 percent also ecution suggested to the jury that this was Reviewed by Christopher C. Faille own a bike. Among those in P who don’t own evidence of consciousness of guilt. an automobile, 20 percent own a bike. These Let’s fast forward to the 1990s. Joseph B. Susan Haack, an Englishwoman who figures, in decimal form, .10 or .20, are “con- Kadane and David A. Schum, two prominent studied philosophy at both Oxford and ditional” probabilities. We do some checking academic statisticians with Bayesian philo- Cambridge, and who now teaches it at the and learn something new about Jones. He sophical inclinations, wrote A Probabilistic University of Miami, has produced this book owns a bike. Analysis of the Sacco and Vanzetti on the philosophy of law or, more strictly, Can we say anything more about the Evidence. In the book, Kadane and Schum on the philosophy behind the tasks that law probability that Jones owns a car, using both don‘t seek to resolve the case, but they do assigns to its finders of fact. our prior and the conditionals? Intuitively, believe that analysis in terms of Bayesian Some of her key points are negative. For you surely sense already that the ownership probability helps to clarify its many issues. example, Haack argues that the mathematics of bikes in this population loosely correlates Their “Chart 25,” for example, walks of probability doesn’t shed any light on the with nonownership of cars, so the new datum readers through the links in the inference law’s standards of proof, but rather threatens should bring the probability somewhat lower from Sacco’s gesture to the conclusion that to obscure them. She also contends that the than the prior. I’ll skip the Bayesian math the prosecution wanted the jury to draw: If reliability of scientific testimony is not to here, but if we worked through it, we would Sacco put his hand under his coat, he might be understood in Popperian (falsification- discover that the new (posterior) probability have been reaching for the revolver; if he ist) terms, although its reliability might be that Jones owns a car is nine out of 11, or was reaching for the revolver, he might have advancing at present due to a sort of rough- roughly .82. planned to use it to fire upon or threaten the and-ready “shadow Popper” who seems to So far so good. As to the broad philosophi- officers; if he had intended to do so, he might have appeared or evolved by lucky accident. cal conclusions, what is now known as the have had the further intention of escaping We’ll take these points in that order. Bayesian interpretation of probability is this: from them; if he had the desire to escape, Probability is an expression of the level of it might have been because he knew he had Bayesian Probability Theory confidence that a rational person will have committed a crime; if he knew that, then In the 18th century, British mathemati- in a certain fact or outcome given facts he the crime he knew he had committed might cian Thomas Bayes (1702–1761) established or she knows. This way of thinking makes have been one of robbery or shooting; and, if an important theorem that allowed for the statistical inference both more subjective that were the case, then he might have had use of conditional probabilities to update and more historical than otherwise. You, the in mind in particular the payroll robbery in prior probabilities. No one contests the valid- inquirer, must in principle (to be deemed South Braintree on April 15, 1920. 9781107698345cvr.qxd 6/13/14 10:39 AM Page 1 ity of this theorem as a matter of mathemat- rational by Bayesians) keep updating your

ics, but some have built broad philosophical view of the probability that Jones owns a car HAACK § Law in Context conclusions upon it, and others reject those with every new relevant datum, with each “There is tremendous confusion in both law and science (including

especially epidemiology) about the proper role of scientific evidence and Matters Evidence conclusions. posterior servinginterpretation as of standardsthe of proofprior in the law. forNo one hasthe come closenext to the insight and understanding that should be crystal clear to anyone who But what do those strange terms mean? link. Keep thatreads thought this perfectly organized in collectionmind. of essays. Haack alone delves into the historical development of the current confusion and brings her deep understanding of law and philosophy to mark the way out of the Instead of now defining “conditional” and confusion. I hope that a copy will be sent to every justice on the US Supreme Court.” SUSAN HAACK “prior” probabilities, I will use a noncontro- Sacco and Vanzetti– Richard W. Wright, Distinguished Professor of Law, IIT Chicago-Kent, College of Law versial example of what Bayes had in mind, On April “Evidence15, Matters1920,is an exciting robbers collection of insightful shot essays from and a respected authority that will receive attention from both philosophers one that appeared in the 1967 MacMillan killed a securityand legal guard, scholars.” Alessandro Berardelli, – Carl F. Cranor, Distinguished Professor, University of California, Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and that Susan at the Slater-MorrillRiverside Shoe Co. factory in Evidence Haack employs in the book under review. South Braintree, Massachusetts. They also Susan Haack is Distinguished Professor in the Humanities, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, Professor of Philosophy, and Matters Suppose we know of a certain population killed that company’sProfessor of Law at the Universitypaymaster, of Miami. Frederick (say, American men with an income above a Parmenter. Three weeks later, authori- Science, Proof, certain level) that 90 percent of its members ties arrested Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo and Truth in the Law own automobiles. We also know that Jones Vanzetti for the murders. The Commonwealth is a member of that population. Our first of Massachusetts tried, convicted, and, after estimate, then, is that there is a 90 percent years of glaring publicity and high-profile likelihood that Jones owns an automobile. If appeals, executedCover design: WendySacco Bedenbaugh and Vanzetti.

92 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • April 2015 There are lots of “ifs” there, and that’s the Descartes reasoned from what he took to be in a puzzle, intersect with and reinforce one point. Every “if,” so long as there are plau- the unquestionable first premise, “I think,” another. sible alternative explanations, reduces the and built the world on top of that. On her first point, about probability, probative value of the alleged evidence. To A coherentist opposes both sorts of foun- Haack observes that, in the mathematical take just a couple of these “ifs”: Sacco might dationalism and looks instead to the logical study of probabilities (whether understood have reached into his jacket simply because consistency and the general cohesion of his in Bayesian fashion or not), the probability of he felt an itch and wanted to scratch it. Or, if or her system of ideas for their warrant. an assertion and of its negation must add up indeed he was reaching for a gun in order to Knowledge is not a pyramid, but a raft, as one to 1. The probability that the top face of the make an escape, then, even if this suggests coherentist has put it, and the success of a raft die when it comes to rest will read “5” and consciousness of a crime, the crime of which depends upon its builders’ and users’ ability to the probability that it won’t read “5” together he was conscious at that moment might have keep the different logs together. must be certain, as one or the other must be been something utterly unrelated to this Foundherentism seeks to draw on the the case. or any robbery or murder. As Kadane and strengths of both views. Knowledge is neither This does not translate well to the search Schum write, “he might have been involved a pyramid nor a raft: It’s the grid of a cross- for what Haack calls “rational credibility,” in other criminal acts such as those con- word puzzle. On the one hand, crossword or, for short, “warrant”; that is, in the search nected with anarchistic activities.” puzzles have to be solved in accord with exter- for data that will justify belief in a particular That is just one example of Kadane and nal realities (the clues printed along the side assertion of fact, such as that Sacco shot Schum’s procedure. The underlying idea is of the grid). On the other hand, a key feature Berardelli. After all, sometimes “there is no that every datum that might suggest the of the puzzle is that the words intersect with evidence, or only very weak evidence, either defendants’ guilt, singly or together, is to be one another, making consistency within the way” and in that case neither the proposition examined for various possible discountings. grid necessary for success, and an important nor its negation can be said to be warranted. Once discounted, it joins the pile of the other meta-clue. Although one can be certain (if the proposi- data, also conceived of as so many discount- Someone solving a crossword puzzle will tion is well-defined) that something either ed atoms, and their compiled weight is to be look for the easiest answers to get a start. A happened or it didn’t—that either Sacco shot taken. This weight is to be compared with clue might say, “quadruped, unlucky if black.” Berardelli or he didn’t—the evidence for one, the legal standard of proof, which, in criminal “Aha!,” the puzzle solver says—“Cat”—and added to the evidence for the other, can total cases, is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. fills in that answer first. The first answer something far less than one. In her criticism of Kadane and Schum becomes, if you like, foundational. Any other On her second point, about the atomistic in Evidence Matters, Haack complains that answers that intersect with it on the grid must approach, Haack says that what makes the they “take for granted that legal degrees of be consistent with it, and because the puzzle collection of reasons offered in support of proof are mathematical probabilities,” so they solver is confident in that one, he or she may a claim rise to the level of warrant is “how are looking for something approximating a proceed to words that intersect with it and well the evidence and the conclusion fit .95 probability that these defendants com- work outward. together in an explanatory account.” The mitted the crime as charged. Evidence Matters is Haack’s effort to phrase “fit together” suggests the crossword Their book offers no categorical con- apply foundherentism to the world of forensic puzzle paradigm. The “explanatory account” clusions, but only (in Haacks’ paraphrase, evidence. is the whole successfully filled-in grid, where worded to emphasize its Bayesian purposes) every word is a sensible response to its clue, “various posterior probabilities that Sacco Broad Objections and every word fits with every other word. was involved in the crime, or that Vanzetti Haack has several objections to Kadane was, given various assignments of prior prob- and Schum’s procedure, but two broad objec- Science and the Expert Witness abilities to various items of evidence and vari- tions infuse her particular objections. First, Thus far I haven’t said anything about sci- ous assignments of conditional probabilities.” she does not believe that “probability” in ence, despite the prominence of that word in the mathematical sense can translate into Evidence Matters’ subtitle: Science, Proof, Foundherentism any one of the three legal burdens of proof and Truth in the Law. Much of the book Haack is perhaps best known for an epis- in Anglo-American law. She would no more takes off from the difficulties created for temological view she set out in 1993 under agree to identifying “beyond a reasonable the law of evidence by a special class of wit- the ungainly name “foundherentism.” It is an doubt” with 95 percent than she would with nesses: credentialed scientific experts. Haack answer to, and a combination of, “foundation- identifying “clear and convincing” with 67 considers what happens, and what should alist” views of knowledge on the one hand percent or “preponderance of the evidence” happen, if one impressively credentialed bio- and “coherentist” views on the other. A foun- with 51 percent. chemist called by the plaintiff testifies that, dationalist looks for an unquestionable first Second, and relatedly, she thinks that yes, substance A can cause disease B, while premise, one that lies low and level on firm the atomistic approach to accumulating and another impressively credentialed biochemist ground, and then builds up knowledge from weighing evidence is all wrong. It misses out called by the defendant testifies that, no, there there, creating an edifice akin to a pyramid. on what to Haack’s foundherentism is the key is no good reason to link A with B. The jurors One form of foundationalism is empiri- thing, namely the way that evidence must are not paneled because of their biochemical cal. It looks to sense perception as the bot- interlock, so the distinct bits of data acquire expertise—they are chosen as representatives tom layer of the pyramid. An alternative force, if they do, not simply through addi- of the community, which of course consists conception of foundationalism is rationalist. tion but through the way they, as do words largely of nonexperts in any technical field.

April 2015 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 93 Haack quotes with apparent approval a determining whether a theory or technique The court agreed that the proposition that lawyer, Marc S. Klein, who wrote in 1990 that is scientific knowledge that will assist the Zoloft causes suicide is testable, but it said such testimony is an “absurd enterprise.” trier of fact will be whether it can be (and has that Johnstone wasn’t able to “point to one Experts are required in pharmaceutical prod- been) tested.” As Haack observes at some scientific study that supports his conclusion,” uct liability actions precisely because “the length, this represents some confusion on thus deeming his testimony unreliable. This medical and scientific details are well beyond Blackmun’s part. Hempel and Popper didn’t is the opposite of the Bonds reasoning. the comprehension of laymen.” So how can agree with each other. Hempel thought that In general, the federal courts seem to we have any confidence that the same laymen testing could validate a scientific hypothesis. have embraced Popper’s name rather than with choose rightly between the competing Popper insisted that testing can only fal- what in Haack’s view is the very dubious testifying experts? sify, never validate. Blackmun was more or character of his philosophy of science. In But then there is Daubert. In Daubert less haphazardly creating a Hempel/Popper embracing his name, the courts have created v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (1993), hybrid of his own. for themselves “a more moderate and more the Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice plausible Popper” than they could have got- Harry Blackmun, transferred some of the What Came of This ten from the real thing. decision-making away from the jurors about More than 20 years on, what has come of The shadow Popper tells us “that the whom Klein was angsting, putting it into the Daubert? Haack regards some of its conse- fact that a theory or technique has not been laps of the judges. Interpreting the Federal quences with a mixture of dismay and amuse- tested is a warning sign, suggesting that Rules of Evidence, the Court said that a trial ment. For example, soon after Daubert, the investigation is as yet incomplete, or that it judge faced with an offer of expert scientific U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit has not been as thorough or as honest as it evidence must ensure that the expert’s testi- decided United States v. Bonds. The defense should; but also that the fact that a theory or mony is both relevant and rests upon a reliable in Bonds had challenged the reliability, and technique has performed successfully under foundation. so the admissibility, of the DNA analysis of rigorous testing is an indication of its reli- an FBI laboratory using a technique called ability,” and that the “kinds of test that The Rules of Evidence restriction fragment length polymorphism are appropriate will vary depending on the Federal Rule of Evidence 401 provides (RFLP). The defendants produced a report nature of the evidence in question.” That isn’t that evidence is relevant if “it has any ten- from the National Research Committee of the a bad place to have ended up. dency to make a fact more or less probable National Academy of Sciences (NAS) that than it would be without the evidence,” and said that RFLP produced unreliable results. Conclusion “the fact is of consequence in determining the The court of appeals refused to take I won’t second-guess or argue with action.” That, incidentally, is a definition that judicial notice of the NAS conclusions and Haack’s conclusions in this book—not even might warm the heart of a Bayesian. In our said that the district court was right to admit the two I have discussed at some length, earlier example, Jones’ bicycle is relevant to the results of the FBI lab’s analysis. Why? much less the several others I have left the question whether Jones has a car in pre- Because, by the very act of offering evidence unmentioned. I will say only that this is a cisely this respect: The one makes the other about the defects of this analysis, the defen- consistently perceptive and erudite volume. less probable. dants “have conceded that the theory and Anyone who wishes to be well-informed on Rule 402 provides that all relevant evi- methods can be tested.” So it is Popperian, matters such as the adversarial system and dence is admissible unless federal law, and though—or indeed because—it failed its relationship to the question for truth, on including the Federal Rules of Evidence, the NAS’ test, it was shown to be scientific. what “truth” means to lawyers versus what provides otherwise. That brings us to Rule That in turn means that, under Blackmun’s it means to scientists or philosophers, or 702, which specifically concerns expert tes- reasoning, it is scientific and reliable. on whether the law ought even to concern timony. It provides that, if “scientific, techni- In sum, then, something can be found to itself with the task of demarcating science cal, or other specialized knowledge will help be reliable by being proven wrong. Haack from other sorts of inquiry, should read this the trier of fact to understand the evidence is brought to quoting Charlie Brown here: book and take account of its arguments. or to determine a fact in issue,” then “an “Good grief.” Personally, I think that Bayes, and mod- expert ... may testify in the form of an opinion Yet not all is lost. Indeed, Haack seems ern Bayesians, have more to offer the legal or otherwise.” To support this rule that only to believe that, in the two decades since profession than Haack acknowledges. To expert opinions that will assist the jurors in Daubert was decided, the Supreme Court argue that point, however, I would have to understanding the evidence are to be admit- and the federal court system in general take explicit account of her reasoning here. ted, Blackmun’s opinion in Daubert gives the have been muddling their way through to And that is a discussion for another day, for judge the task of ascertaining the “reliability” something sensible. They have abandoned I fear I have wearied my reader already.  of the body of knowledge from which the the real Popper, with or without Hempel’s proposed witness is working in the formation support, for a sort of “shadow Popper,” yet Christopher Faille graduated from of his or her opinion. the shadow Popper turns out to make a good Western New England College School of Blackmun had apparently been reading deal of sense. Law in 1982 and became a member of up on the philosophy of science. He cited She approves, for example, of Cloud v. the Connecticut Bar soon thereafter. He both Karl Popper and Carl Hempel in a Pfizer, a 2001 decision by a federal district is at work on a book that will make the single paragraph in support of the proposi- court in Arizona, which excluded the testi- quants of Wall Street intelligible to sociol- tion that “a key question to be answered in mony of the plaintiff’s expert, Dr. Johnstone. ogy majors.

94 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • April 2015 LINCOLN ON LAW, this case for you. I couldn’t do it. All the retainer. When fully paid beforehand, you LEADERSHIP, AND LIFE time while standing talking to that jury I’d are more than a common mortal if you can BY JONATHAN W. WHITE be thinking, ‘Lincoln, you’re a liar,’ and I feel the same interest in the case. ... And Cumberland House, Naperville, IL, 2015. believe I should forget myself and say it when you lack interest in the case the job 108 pages, $12.99. out loud.” will very likely lack skill and diligence in Lincoln, however, once accepted a the performance.” Lincoln added that, if Reviewed by Henry Cohen case that did not square with this atti- you take a promissory note in advance, tude, and White does not discuss it in never sell it before the service is per- Jonathan White, the author of Lincoln the book. In 1847, Lincoln represented a formed. But Lincoln apparently allowed on Law, Leadership, and Life, told me Kentucky slaveholder, Robert Matson, to an exception for “fees we earn at a dis- that he had wanted the title of this book help him recover a slave family. Lincoln tance.” If they are “not paid before, ... to be Lincoln’s Advice for Lawyers, did not condone slavery in 1847, for he we never hear of [them] after the work is but that the publisher wished to secure later wrote, “I am naturally anti-slavery. done.” Once, a client paid Lincoln $25 for a broader audience for it. Although this If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I his legal services, and Lincoln returned book is largely about Lincoln’s advice for can not remember when I did not so think, $10, writing, “You must think I am a high- lawyers, the broader title is legitimate, and feel.” Lincoln biographer Michael priced man. You are too liberal with your because much of Lincoln’s advice for law- Burlingame writes, “Lincoln’s agreement money. Fifteen dollars is enough for the yers can apply to life in general. As White to represent Matson has been called ‘one job.” writes, “Lincoln believed that the highest of the greatest enigmas of his career,’ Lincoln, White writes, “often did not duty of a lawyer was to be a peacemaker the ‘most profound mystery ever to con- even accept a fee when he could settle in his community. Therefore, any read- found Lincoln specialists,’ and ‘one of the a case out of court,” and Lincoln tried er who deals with interpersonal conflict strangest episodes in Lincoln’s career at hard to settle cases or to persuade his can learn from Lincoln’s insights. Indeed, the bar.’” clients not to sue at all. He advised young Lincoln’s lessons for attorneys can apply Burlingame speculates that, “despite lawyers, “Discourage litigation. Persuade to almost any walk of life.” his antislavery convictions, Lincoln your neighbors to compromise whenever Lincoln advised lawyers to be honest: accepted the Matson case in keeping with you can. Point out to them how a nomi- “[I]f in your own judgment you cannot be what became known in England as the nal winner is often a real loser—in fees, an honest lawyer,” he wrote, “resolve to ‘cab-rank’ rule—stipulating that lawyers expenses, and waste of time.” be honest without being a lawyer. Choose must accept the first client who hails White relates how, once, when several some other occupation. ...” Lincoln’s con- them—and with the prevailing Whig view lawyers, including Lincoln, and an Illinois ception of honesty included believing that lawyers should try to settle disputes judge, David Davis—a close friend whom in the equity and justice of the cases in an orderly fashion through the courts, Lincoln would later appoint to the U.S. one took. A lawyer who had worked in trusting in the law and the judges to Supreme Court—were gathered together, Lincoln’s law office reported the time that assure that justice was done. As a col- “Lincoln asked the group ‘a novel question Lincoln told a potential client, “Well, you league at the bar said of Lincoln, he ‘was regarding court practice’ and was careful have a pretty good case in technical law, like the rest of us and took the defense not to address the question to anyone in but a pretty bad one in equity and justice. of anyone who had a chance with the particular. Davis naturally gave his views You’ll have to get some other fellow to win law.’” In any event, Burlingame writes, on the subject.” Lincoln laughed and said, “[h]owever reluctant Lincoln may have “I asked that question, hoping that you been to act on Matson’s behalf, he argued would answer. I have that very question to his client’s case forcefully.” He lost, how- present to the court in the morning, and ever, and the slave family immigrated to I am very glad to find out that the court Liberia, where they were observed the is on my side.” One wonders whether following year living “truly in a deplorable such ex parte contact with the court was condition.” deemed ethical in those days. In general, though, White writes, In its final two chapters, Lincoln on Lincoln “would reject clients he saw as Law, Leadership, and Life moves from greedy, dishonest, or in the wrong.” On Lincoln’s advice to lawyers to descrip- one occasion, “upon learning that his cli- tions of, respectively, his courtroom skills ent was guilty, Lincoln turned to [his co- and his legal actions as President, such as counsel] and said, ‘You speak to the jury. his suspension of habeas corpus. This lit- If I say a word, they will see from my face tle book can be read in a couple of hours that the man is guilty and convict him.’” and enjoyed by anyone—particularly law- Lincoln also had advice for young yers, law students, and those contemplat- lawyers regarding fees. “An exorbitant ing attending law school.  fee,” he wrote, “should never be claimed. As a general rule, never take your whole Henry Cohen is the book review edi- fee in advance, nor any more than a small tor of The Federal Lawyer.

April 2015 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • 95 BREAKING IN: THE RISE OF subject. Although Sotomayor is frank in My believe, as to whether the time was right— SONIA SOTOMAYOR AND THE Beloved World, Biskupic can take a more whether it was her time—to ascend to the POLITICS OF JUSTICE probing look at some of the more contro- Supreme Court. BY JOAN BISKUPIC versial aspects of her history, including her Make no mistake: Biskupic does not Sarah Crichton Books, New York, NY, 2014. 274 pages, decision as a judge on the Second Circuit portray Sotomayor as being more flash $26.00. in the reverse discrimination case of Ricci than substance. Rather, she shows how v. DeStefano, and the criticisms that she the little girl from the Bronx afflicted with Reviewed by Elizabeth Kelley lacks the traditional judicial temperament juvenile diabetes developed a million-dollar and that she is more concerned with estab- personality, which she has used to distin- In 2009, shortly after the U.S. Senate lishing her own identity on the Court than guish herself from her peers, including her confirmed her appointment to the Supreme with building consensus among the other colleagues on the Court. In her speeches Court, Justice Sonia Sotomayor signed a justices. and in her writings, Sotomayor has been $3 million book deal with Knopf. Other As for what Biskupic’s book adds to frank that affirmative action opened doors justices had written their memoirs and our knowledge, she devotes much of its for her. But she emphasizes that her abili- books about law while serving on the high first half describing the political environ- ties—and her determination to compensate court, but none had ever received so a ment for Latinos from the 1960s up to the for any shortfalls—enabled her to thrive. large advance, particularly after such a day that Sotomayor was nominated as the Today, she easily moves between writ- brief period of service. This, like much of first Hispanic justice by the nation’s first ing opinions and pressing the button for Sotomayor’s life, was precedent-shattering. African-American President. In particular, the countdown ball for New Year’s Eve in When Sotomayor’s book, My Beloved she describes the shrewd political maneu- Times Square. And Sotomayor revels in World, was released in January 2013, it vers Sotomayor made over the years, from the niche she has created, having become soared to the top of bestseller lists, where her days as a law student at Yale through an important voice on the Court and, in it remained for months. (I reviewed it in her service on the Second Circuit. The sec- public, being treated as a rock star and The Federal Lawyer’s June 2013 issue). ond half of the book analyzes Sotomayor’s serving as a role model. People lined up for hours to greet the jus- judicial legacy thus far, a legacy that is In the opening chapter of Breaking In, tice on her book tour. While Sotomayor was inextricably bound with her public per- Sotomayor is attending the traditional end- writing and promoting her autobiography, sona, or what could easily be called her of-term party at the Court for the justices journalist Joan Biskupic was working on celebrity. and their clerks. The party always features the book under review, Breaking In: The If you are reading Breaking In in order a comedy routine in which staff members Rise of Sonia Sotomayor and the Politics to get a better handle on Sotomayor, how- parody the habits of their bosses. At the of Justice, and would receive Sotomayor’s ever, you will be disappointed. But, then, end of this particular party, Sotomayor assistance in doing so. perhaps her power­—indeed, her allure— announces that it has all been too dignified, Why, you might ask, would I bother is that she is not easily categorized. Is and she begins to salsa dance. The image to read another book about Sotomayor she a talented politician, a distinguished of her attempting to get Justice Samuel just two years after reading My Beloved jurist, or someone who has parlayed her Alito to dance is priceless. And the image World? What could Biskupic possibly add achievements to celebrity status? From the of her coaxing Justice Ruth Ginsburg, to our knowledge of Sotomayor? As for day when, as a little girl watching Perry who had recently lost her husband, out the first question, as an autobiography, Mason, Sotomayor decided to be a lawyer, of her seat and whispering, “Martin would My Beloved World was written through she knew that her gender, nationality, want you to dance,” is touching. This is the lens, indeed, the filter, of its author/ and economic status could be barriers. Justice Sonia Sotomayor: undaunted, and Breaking In tells of how she used these as always, precedent-shattering.  to her advantage: by cultivating support- ers such as Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, Elizabeth Kelley is a criminal defense by serving on non-profit boards support- lawyer based in Spokane, Wash. She ing the Puerto Rican community, and by has a special commitment to repre- building a nationwide network of support senting individuals with mental ill- through speaking engagements. ness and developmental or intellectual Breaking In also tells of how Sotomayor disabilities who are accused of crimes. built her legal résumé: by thriving in the She has served two terms on the board gritty, rough and tumble of the Manhattan of the National Association of Criminal district attorney’s office led by Robert Defense Lawyers, has served as the chair Morgenthau, and by gaining commercial of the Mental Health and Corrections law litigation experience at a New York committees, and is currently the chair City firm. Sotomayor put in her time on the of the Membership Committee. She hosts federal benches of the Southern District of two radio shows, “Celebrity Court” and New York and the Court of Appeals for the “Celebrity Court: Author Chats.” She Second Circuit, always looking out of the can be contacted at zealousadvocacy@ corner of her eye, Biskupic would have us aol.com.

96 • THE FEDERAL LAWYER • April 2015