Singing Loudly

Today I was reading a criminal procedure case that mentioned the "Invisibility Cloak" from the Harry Potter novels. I took note that it was a 9th Circuit case and decided to do a little research on the use of Harry Potter metaphors in the 9th Circuit jurisprudence.

There was a little more than I expected:

US v. Bonas (2003): After the recess, the Assistant United States Attorney advised the district court that it could dismiss simply by "uttering the magic words, that the court finds that manifest necessity exists." But this is not a Harry Potter novel; there is no charm for making a defendant's constitutional rights disappear. By bypassing the opportunity to urge the district court to make a record supporting its finding of manifest necessity, the government forfeited the right to try the defendant again.

US v. Birdsbill (2003): The Ready court concludes that "Dr. Abel's . . . failure to reveal . . . [the formula underlying the AASI test] means that the formula has not been subjected to rigorous scientific scrutiny." Another court has come to the same conclusion and compared Dr. Abel's formula to the "magic of young Harry Potter's mixing potions at the Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry." In the Interest of CDK, JLK, and BJK, 64 S.W.3d 679, 683-84 (Tex. Ct. Appeals Jan. 3, 2002). This Court is not equipped to interpret or test Dr. Abel's formula, and because Dr. Abel has not released his formula for testing by other scientists, it remains merely an untested and unproven theory.

[Editor's comment: I realize that they did not come up with this metaphor in the 9th Circuit, but they do use the metaphor and apply it correctly. That is close enough]

US v. Gonzalez (2003): Gonzalez would have us adopt a theory of the Fourth Amendment akin to J.K. Rowling's Invisibility Cloak, to create at will a shield impenetrable to law enforcement view even in the most public places.

Does the frequent use of Rawlings by the 9th Circuit say something about the quality of Rawlings or illustrate the demise of legal writing on the 9th Circuit? I would say the former.