Chris Christie, Marco Rubio, and the Triangle Shirtwaist Trial

Chris Christie and Marco Rubio are both law school graduates, but I am willing to bet that Christie paid more attention in his Trial Advocacy class. He certainly proved himself the better advocate in the recent Republican presidential debate, when he baited Rubio into the trap of repeating himself verbatim. For those who missed the event, Rubio used virtually the same line twice in the space of about three minutes:

Let’s dispel with this fiction that Barack Obama doesn’t know what he’s doing. He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s trying to change this country.

Christie jumped on Rubio’s unforced error. "There it is, the memorized 25-second speech," he said. "There it is, everyone."

Remarkably, Rubio went on to repeat himself two more times, for a total of four iterations in nearly the identical language.

Christie made sure that nobody missed the point:

You see everybody, I want the people at home to see this. That is what Washington DC does, the drive- by attack at the beginning with incorrect and incomplete information and then the memorized 25-second speech . . . . Marco, the thing is this, when you're president of the United States, or you're governor of a state, the memorized 30-second speech where you talk about how great America is at the end of it doesn't solve one problem for one person.

As students of trial advocacy have no doubt noticed, Christie was virtually channeling the legendary New York trial lawyer Max Steuer, who used the same tactic to obtain acquittals for the men responsible for the Triangle Shirtwaist fire of 1911, in which 146 garment workers – most of them young immigrant women – lost their lives.

An investigation following the fire disclosed that many of the exits in the building had been locked shut, preventing the escape of the workers, while executives were easily able to climb to safety on the building’s roof. Within a couple of weeks, the factory owners were indicted for manslaughter.

The prosecution called numerous witnesses when the case came to trial, who described the awful scene on the factory floor. One of the most effective was Kate Alterman, who spoke in a thick Yiddish accent:

“The whole floor was a red curtain of fire,” she testified. “Bernstein, the manager’s brother [was] throwing around like a wildcat at the window.” One of the workers tried to open the door, but it wouldn’t move. “I saw her bending down on her knees, and her hair was loose, and the trail of her dress was a little far from her, and then a big smoke came” and engulfed her.

It seemed that Kate had been a star witness, but Steuer realized that she sounded rehearsed. Breaking one of the first rules of cross-examination, he asked her to repeat the story. She told it again, almost word for word. He asked her to tell the story a third time, and again she repeated herself, with one small change, which Steuer immediately noticed. Tell us again about the flames, he said.

The witness corrected herself. They were “like a red curtain.”

“And how was Bernstein acting,” asked Steuer.

“Like a wildcat,” Alterman replied.

“You left that out the second time,” continued Steuer. “You did leave that out, didn’t you, just now?” Then he asked her to tell the story yet again.

The witness obliged, this time including the wildcat and red curtain statements.

By then it was obvious to everyone in the courtroom that the witness had been coached into memorizing her testimony, irreparably damaging her credibility. It took the jury only two hours to acquit the defendants on all charges.

The story of Max Steuer and the Triangle Fire has been told many times, perhaps most notably by the late Irving Younger in his famous lecture The Ten Commandments of Cross Examination. Although I cannot be sure, there is a good chance that Christie saw a videotape of the lecture (or heard about it) during his law school days at Seton Hall, or perhaps when he served as a federal prosecutor. In any case, the spirit of Max Steuer was certainly present when Christie schooled Rubio on the dangers of memorization.

[You can read more about Max Steuer in my book, Lawyers’ Poker, or on Doug Linder’s “Famous Trials” website.]

Comments

[anon]

Wow. Once again, Lubet weaves a cheap political attack (based on whatever crass "news" of the moment is being touted by his team as evidence that all Republicans are evil) into his rehearsed, repetitive scheme to pretend his posts are actually about some valid, substantive point or another, and not about his political campaign against Republicans (one is sure that candidates on his "side" never, ever do anything worse that is worth mentioning). He follows a rigorous pattern in these posts of pretending that his point is some deep thought about some worthy topic.

Project much, sir?

[not so sly]

@ anon:

Huh? The post doesn't say any of the things you read into it. There's no political attack. This post has nothing to do with Democrats vs Republicans.

Lubet's post is a comment about the historical nature of an advocacy technique. It has nothing to do with Republicans, other than the fact that the current instance of this technique took place during the Republican debate.

I'd venture to suggest that you, anon, whoever you are, are a little over-sensitive.

[Jack Chin]

Interesting analogy. But I thought I heard somewhere that the punchline of the Triangle Shirtwaist trial was that it was a Tammany fix, rather than brilliant lawyering, that dictated the outcome.

[anon]

Not so sly

Using the FL as a "MSNBC" like outlet is a misuse, IHMO.

This author repeatedly attempts to link the latest Democratic talking points to some legal issue. It is in the repetition by this author, the "robo" like adherence to only one party, the studious avoidance of any concern for objectively and attention to the real issues (rather than the "fluff" of the day), and, most importantly, the divisive, adversary stance that he takes, always, that makes these posts, again IMHO, objectionable.

I don't advocate for any of the candidates here. Why try to turn the FL into a forum for crass, divisive political advocacy based on near religious adherence to a political party (including exculpating one's own icons and demonizing the "others" no matter what).

So many today are calling for a better way. Count me among them. I find Lubet's old fashioned partisanship sort of stale and especially inappropriate in the FL.

[not so sly]

anon,

Substantively being curious, what other examples of Lubet purportedly writing posts that adhere to this trope can you point to? (I tried to go back find his past posts, but when I click on his name I just get linked to his NW faculty page - I don't know of an easy way to link to past posts of a single blogger here).

Lubet's posts that stick out most in my mind are the Goffman posts. I know he's written other things, but nothing really jumps out to me. I distinctly know that none of his posts, this one included, have ever struck me as politically partisan in any way.

Again, perhaps you're being a little over-sensitive?

[anon]

not so sly

I will direct you to Lubet's repeated posts here in the FL on Republican candidates. I have no better resource than you to digest them. Regular readers of the FL (and Lubet) will recall these many posts.

These posts uniformly attempt to embarrass and discredit a Republican candidate, by way of a prevalent talking point of the day, and then tie the issue to some legal point, in a transparent and ineffective attempt to cover the naked partisanship behind the effort. This isn't some subtle effort only detectible by some overly sensitive sensor.

Rather, it is, as stated above, good old fashioned "It's us against them, folks" dressed up in an attempt to make the effort acceptable here in the FL, which should be a refuge from the constant hate and partisanship so common in other media, at least IMHO.

[John Steele]

Steve, the version of the story you recount here is closer to the distorted version that Irving Younger frequently repeated in his "The Ten Commandments of Cross-Examination speech." The actual cross was more subtle. I previously posted about this at my blog.

[Cent Rieker]

Let's dispel with this fiction that anon doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's doing. He's trying to perpetuate the (mythical) persecution of conservatives in this country.

Let's dispel with this fiction that anon doesn't know what he's doing. He knows exactly what he's (battery low... battery low)

Seriously, maybe someone more intelligent can explain to me how this interesting story about the Triangle Shirtwaist Trial and Chris Christie's effective utilization of it is the equivalent of a Keith Olbermann Special Comment??

[anon]

The ability to ignore facts that are contrary to one's sense of "truthiness" was supposed to be a character flaw of Republicans. Not any more, as it seems the title, first six paragraphs of the post above, and the entire point (Rubio has "irreparably damaged his credibility") are not recognized.

I have questioned Lubet's political skills, objectivity and his campaign in the FL on behalf of one side of the political spectrum: ignoring the same or worse faults in those on his "side." Promulgating whatever talking points are playing on MSNBC at the time, dressed up with some analogy to a point of law or practice, does not make this effort any less transparent. This is not the forum, IMHO, for another Lee Atwater.

Reactions to questioning this sort of obvious effort that spew partisanship seem to be exactly what Lubet seeks to inspire. This is further proof of Lubet's intentions. As one recalls, a few of these posts ago, Lubet inadvertently posted an email he sent to one of the commenters on this site.

Lubet removed that email almost immediately, so that "proof" is now unavailable. However, it would be instructive to read that thread, and Lubet's email, in this context, to determine those intentions. This country is becoming more and more polarized, and it is those who cling to the "50% of the people in this country are evil" meme that are ruining it.

To repeat, "[This] is, as stated above, good old fashioned "It's us against them, folks" dressed up in an attempt to make the effort acceptable here in the FL, which should be a refuge from the constant hate and partisanship so common in other media, at least IMHO. Why try to turn the FL into a forum for crass, divisive political advocacy based on near religious adherence to a political party (including exculpating one's own icons and demonizing the "others" no matter what). So many today are calling for a better way. Count me among them. I find Lubet's old fashioned partisanship sort of stale and especially inappropriate in the FL."

[cpm]

A transcript of the trial is available--in sections or in full-- here: http://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/triangletrans/