"Charles L. Harness-Probable Cause" - читать интересную книгу автора (Harness Charles L)

a lot of argument and embarrassment later on."
"You read the testimony," said Pendleton. "At the moment there's supposed to be nothing on the film."
"Then what in tarnation is the good of it?"
 'Some kind of magic-- and don't ask me what-- is eventually supposed to appear on it."
"When?"
"On Decision Day."
The Senior Associate Justice snorted. "You expect us to believe that?"
"No."
"I should think not . Let's get back to reality. As I view this thing, we're on the horns of a real dilemma.
If we take the case and reverse Tyson's conviction because there was an unconstitutional invasion of
privacy, then we have probably ruled that clairvoyance is a real and functional phenomenon. Science
arises in anguish. On the other hand, if we rule that clairvoyance doesn't exist, and that, therefore, there
was no invasion of privacy, then the bleeding-heart liberals arise in howling dismay at the official blessing
we have now given police use of clairvoyance. Who needs wiretaps anymore? Psi is easier, and the cops
will be welcome to use all the psi technique they can dig up: telepathy, clairvoyance, hexing,
prekenners..."
"What's a 'prekenner,' Judge?" asked Edmonds, fascinated.
"Somebody who previously kens what's going to happen, so as to set up police traps to catch
criminals in the act. I just made up the word. But if Roly can use two words when he means one, surely I
can use one word when I mean two. That's all I wanted to say. You take it, Roly."
"Thank you, Mr. Godwin," said Burke coldly. He paused a moment, looking at the chandeliers
overhead, as though simplifying and tailoring his thoughts for certain of the less disciplined minds around
him.
Edmonds awaited the dissertation with interest. Somehow, of course, it would turn on logic.
In Burke's early days as a judge on the New Jersey bench, Frankfurter had been his model. But this
had changed over the years. Burke (like Cervantes) had finally recognized that every man was the
product of his own work. But where Cervantes had been content to permit the process to operate
subconsciously, Burke went to the final logical limit. He found in his own past works his best inspiration.
As he shaved in the morning, he listened to tapes of his previous decisions. And he listened to the same
tapes in his car as he drove to court, and at night put himself to sleep with them.
He had founded the Burke Chair in Logic at Harvard. His famous text, Logic in Appellate Decisions
(dedicated to himself) consisted largely of annotated excerpts from his own decisions. He was both
ignorant of and indifferent to what others thought of his magnificent narcissism. In fact, he considered
himself modest, and sought out situations where his modesty might be displayed, noticed, and
commented on. Roland Burke's long love affair with himself had not dimmed with the passing of time: it
was a serene thing, unmarred by lovers' quarrels. He had no portraits hanging in his office; only mirrors.
Edmonds sometimes wondered at his own reaction to Burke. Far from feeling contempt or derision,
he found he envied the famous jurist's confident, self-centered, doubt-free integration into his codified
environment, and his system of logic that so easily resolved all questions into black and white, with no
plaguing shades of gray left over.
"Psi," began Burke, "is hogwash-- illogical by its very definition. Yet, as I shall demonstrate, logic
requires that we take the case. There are only two possibilities: a) to deny the petition, and b) to grant. If
we deny, this sets a precedent that the Supreme Court will refuse to review constitutional questions
involving psi. Our refusal would be interpreted by the lower courts as endorsing warrants issuing on
clairvoyant information. Such a consequence is clearly unthinkable. This leaves us, therefore, only with
the second alternate, b), to grant. Logically, we must grant."
"Quod erat demonstrandum," murmured Godwin.
Burke ignored him loftily.
"Thank you, Mr. Burke," said the Chief Justice. "Mr. Moore?"
Nicholas Moore of Louisiana spoke with a soft drawl. "I disagree. This is not the kind of case this