Charles Whitebread:
Via ATL, I learn that Professor Charles Whitebread, a criminal procedure professor at USC School of Law, has passed away. Professor Whitebread was famous for being a highly entertaining bar review lecturer: I still remember his distinctive voice and sense of humor over a decade later. He was also the author (among other things) of a treatise in Criminal Procedure (with Christopher Slobogin). He will be missed.
He was entertaining. He reminded me of Brian Doyle Murray. He will be missed!
I will always remember him saying a certain question would always be on the bar exam for one of two fact patterns (he was right) and the answer would always be "Murder." Professor Whitebreak explained:
"Why? Because it's the bar exam."
In any event, while I had a great, great crim. law/crim. pro. professor (Ron Boyce at Utah), I always thought it a shame I could not have had Professor Whitebread as well.
He had a lot of colorful stories. One of my favorites (which I'll surely botch here, despite having heard it twice) was from his research into the criminalization of marijuana.
An expert at a trial testified of the negative effects of marijuana use. The attorney conducting the examination asked the expert how he knew of these effects. The expert replied, in a revelation that stirred the gallery, that he had, in fact, smoked marijuana himself to see.
The attorney then asked what happened to the expert after smoking. The expert replied that he transformed into a bat.
My last conversation with him was about the Herring case. We've not only lost a great person, teacher, and friend, but also an enthusiastic advocate for the exclusionary rule.
USC Law won't be the same without him.
A real loss.
I'm always sorry to hear of the passing of people like Prof. Whitebread, whose influence stretched far beyond his immediate presence.
If I were to have formed Superstar Law School, he would have been the first hire.
People who took the bar recently told me that he hadn't taught their course. I wondered why.
Really great lecturer.
He was colorful, fun, and i learned alot of practical stuff from him. He was a great teacher, which i think often is underappreciated in law schools.
I suspect that the pass rate for the bar is going to plummet, at least in the criminal law sectins. ;-)
His best lines:
- If somebody's dead, somebody's guilty.
- Why? It's the bar exam.
And my favorite was the pantomime of the police officers stopping in the middle of a hot pursuit to arrest someone else. It looked like the Flintstones.
A favorite memory (among many): as the Student Bar Association president, I attended a meeting of the bulk of the USC Law faculty, and enjoyed hearing him chide those of his colleagues who taught bar subjects and could not be bothered to learn how the subject was actually tested on the exam.
As an entire generation of attorneys reflects on his passing, a subsequent generation's education is worse off for it.
- If somebody's dead, somebody's guilty.
- Why? It's the bar exam.
My favorite: "Don't be fooled by trick questions. (In voice of uncertain aspiring lawyer:) 'Is a lamp really a deadly weapon?' (back to Whitehead voice:) It killed him, didn't it?"
(He gave the orientation on the Honor System to entering undergraduates at UVA when I entered in 1971. He was a superstar even then.)
RIP Professor Whitebread.
Not to take away anything from the late Professor Whitebread, but the delivery from memory of Professor Chemerinsky's Conlaw outline, down to the "Capital A, little i, small b," along with the attractive penne-a-la-vodka lady's anecdotes and bubbly delivery, also stick in my mind.
His pioneering and followup work on drug prohibition also set a standard rarely met.
He will be missed by many besides law students.
Another moving obit, from which the above links came, is at The Drug Law Blog.
RIP.
Like Tony Tutins I also vividly remember Erwin C.. After twenty years that speaks pretty well of both of them. For Prof. Whitebread to have impressed so many in so brief a time, he must have been a real presence to those who really knew him. My condolences to his family and friends.
1. Two cops walk up sidewalk towards house to solicit donations from homeowner for some charity.
2. Homeowner / client emerges from house to meet the two cops, says "You must be here about that Buick I stole."
Great speaker, RIP.
When I was in one of his classes I read an op-ed piece which listed him as a potential Supreme Court nominee who was clearly qualified and whose nomination would not stir up any controversy. The author clearly did not know that Charlie was openly -- and outspokenly -- gay. It was an LOL moment before that acronym was invented. When I mentioned the article to Charlie a couple of days later he told me he thought it was the funniest thing he'd ever seen. From a man who knew better than most of us how to enjoy a good laugh, that was saying something.
It's not easy having to write about Charlie in the past tense, but seeing him publicly recognized makes the news of his passing easier to take. Thank you again for blogging about him.
Alas, Erwin is now at UC-Irvine (he's the founding dean of UCI's new law school) and Charlie is gone. It's hard to imagine that the current USC Law students have such gifted teachers to learn from. Of course, the same is true of students at every other law school.
There were perhaps two or three hundred juniors and seniors in the class (even with us, he had our names memorized after a few weeks and would call on us by name if we raised a hand). The first quarter was taught out of his Crim Procedure text. At least three or four times, while he was discussing some police action or another, some witless bonehead who hadn't been coming to class would ask, "Can they do that?" Each time, Whitebread would bellow in that resonant voice of his, "Of course, they've got guns!"
He also delivered a great aphorism while we were talking about confessions: "When you were a child, your parents taught you about George Washington and his cherry tree. When you went to church, your priest taught you all about redemption. But I'm your teacher now. Confess to your parents. Confess to your priest. But when it comes to the law, CONFESS AND BE SCREWED!"
Before this description became the negative epithet it is now, he was truly a "Sage on the Stage." I'm proud to have learned so much at his feet.
Charlie was always, from his first day in the classroom, a great teacher. One of my funniest memories was a day in criminal procedure (back when there weren't many women in the class) when he was commending one of the women students for a well crafted response to one of his Socratic inquiries. Taking a very strong drag from this then ever-present cigarette, he looked down at the woman student in question and said, innocently, "why, Miss S..., those are both very good points you have there!" Needless to say, he blushed beet red, apologized profusely, and tried to regain his composure while the entire class (including the women in the class) laughed until we were in tears. It was one of those truly silly moments, when someone says something, so clearly innocent in intent and delivered guilelessly, that allows everyone to have a good laugh without becoming submerged in political correctness and needing to extract a pound of flesh from someone who said what he meant, but didn't exactly mean what was "said."
I will miss Charlie dearly, as will countless other law students, lawyers, judges and FBI agents who benefitted from his natural skill as a teacher and from his unconditional and enduring friendship.
Charlie took the stage at Bar/Bri- Los Angels in his signature bow-tie, striped shirt and linen suit. He asked the assembled students "What is the Golden Rule for Murder?" Some said "specific intent" , other yelled "deliberation", "premeditation". Then came that unmistakeable voice of Charlie's
"No. The Golden Rule of Murder is you have to have a dead body; if he ain't dead, there is no murder no matter how hard his wife tried."
RIP Charlie
[Important Note to Helpful Readers: If we have confusing typos and especially ugly formatting errors, such as an unclosed underline or bold tag, we'd love to hear from you about them -- but please e-mail the author about this, rather than leaving a comment. We often won't read the comments for a while after the post, and if there's a glaring formatting error, we'd see it quickly when we revisit the post, even without the comment; and in any event the comment likely isn't going to be that helpful to your fellow comment readers. So please e-mail us directly about glitches like this. Thanks!]
Comment Policy: We'd like the posts to be civil, of course (no profanity, personal insults, and the like), but we're also hoping that people try to be as calm, reasoned, and substantive as possible. So please, also avoid rants, invective, substantial and repeated exaggeration, and radical departures from the topic of the thread. Sticking with substance -- and staying on-topic -- will make the comments more helpful to other readers, and more pleasant.
As editors, we reserve the right to delete posts, and even to kick out posters, though we hope that both of these will be exceptional events. (We also reserve the right to be busy with other things, and therefore (1) not remove all the posts that might merit removal, and (2) ignore demands such as "You should remove A's posts, because they're just as bad as B's!")
Here's a tip: Reread your post, and think of what people would think if you said this over dinner. If you think people would view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who vastly overdoes it on the hyperbole, rewrite your post before hitting enter.
And if you think this is the other people's fault -- you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, but fools wrongly view you as a crank, a blowhard, or as someone who overdoes it on the hyperbole -- then you should still rewrite your post before hitting enter. After all, if you're one of the few who sees the world clearly, then surely it's especially important that you frame your arguments in a way that is persuasive and as unalienating as possible, even to fools.
Our goal is to provide an interesting and pleasant environment that can help inform readers. To do that, we'll occasionally have to exercise our editorial discretion. Think of this as an in-person discussion group, where having different voices is critical to a great conversation -- but where sometimes the leader has to deal with cranks who sour the conversation more than they enliven it.
Naturally, there's always a risk that this discretion will be used erroneously, no matter how well-intentioned the editor. But discussion groups (especially on the Internet, but also off it) generally need an editor who'll occasionally make such judgments.
And, remember, it's a big Internet. If you think we were mistaken in removing your post (or, in extreme cases, in removing you) -- or if you prefer a more free-for-all approach -- there are surely plenty of ways you can still get your views out.