CUA Cover Winter 2005 final (Page 2) - Columbus School of Law

A L I F E P A S S I O N F O R J U S T I C EHis former colleague at CUA, Professor Clifford Fishman,was moved to pen the memoriam below upon receivingthe news of his old friend’s passing.I want to share two thoughts about Fred — one personaland one professional.I’ve been at CUA for 30 years now, and the years that Fredwas on the faculty were definitely the most fun. One reason forthat: Several times a week, Fred, Lou Barracato, Leroy Clarkand I would get together in the faculty lounge for lunch, andthe conversations were incredible. We talked about the law, andpolitics, and race, and religion, and our kids, and the school,and sports, and just about anything else. Others joined us too,from time to time, but we four were the regulars. It was alwaysdifficult to get up from the table and go back to work.Another reason those years were so much fun was thatFred and I taught the same courses, and each of us came froma background of practical, in-court experience, but of course hiswas from the defense perspective and mine the prosecutorial, sowe’d often lock horns and swap war stories.I also have one particular “professional” moment I want totell you about. In 1995, after the O.J. Simpson verdict came in,people at the law school were of course aghast, and someonehad the clever idea of putting together a faculty presentationabout it. Four faculty members made presentations to a packedauditorium. The first three speakers — all of them tenured fullprofessors, by the way — explained how distressing the verdictwas from a sociopolitical point of view, and tried to explain thejury’s aberrant and totally incomprehensible verdict from aracial point of view, and so on. All three presentations were welldone, and each confirmed what pretty much all of us thoughtabout the verdict in the first place.Then Fred got up to speak, and unlike any of the others,he spoke about the case itself, and also the law. First, hereminded us of the elements of the crimes Simpson wascharged with; then he reviewed the legal definition of “beyonda reasonable doubt.” Then he examined the evidence for us,pointing out all of the places where a rational jury could in factfind a reasonable doubt. In typical Fred fashion, he was blunt,he asked no quarter and gave none, and he pretty much tookthe other presentations to pieces. We didn’t have to like theverdict, we didn’t have to agree with it, he told us, but we hadto respect it as a legitimate one, based on what actually happenedin the courtroom.I have only a vague recollection of who the other speakerswere, let alone what they said. But I vividly remember Fredthat day because it was so effective and so typical of him in somany ways: his passion for the law, his refusal to accept the collectiveviewpoint merely because it was the collective viewpoint,his insistence on examining the law and evidence andtaking them apart piece by piece when necessary — and hisdetermination to pass that passion and that insistence on to hisstudents — and to teach them how to do it.Fred was a loyal friend. In fact, his loyalty to CUA and ourstudents continued even after he left the full-time faculty. Hecontinued to hire CUA alumni, and he remained an activemember of our Thurgood Marshall Inns of Court.Of all the lawyers I’ve ever met, if ever I (or a loved one)was in serious legal difficulty, Fred’s the one I’d want tohave in my corner. Our profession has lost one of its finestmembers.Professor Clifford FishmanJuly 2007Another friend, Professor Lou Barracato, offered this at aeulogy for Bennett:Friends admired Fred Bennett’srefusal to bow to popular opinionjust because it was popular.“Raise your glass and bow your eyes. Do not mournthe death of Fred Warren Bennett but rather thankyour God that such a man lived and touched your life.”Fall–Winter 2007 / C UALAWYER 27