LegalEase: The boxer

Published 1:30 am Wednesday, June 10, 2026

It is one of those memories that is as clear as it was on the day it happened. In 1969 I was stationed at Fort Gordon, Georgia. It was late spring. A little more than a month later I would be in Viet Nam.

A group of us had a three-day leave so we headed for the beaches of South Carolina.

We camped on the beach that night. In the morning, we sat around an early morning campfire listening to our transistor radio. (Some of you may remember those.)

The DJ announced a brand-new song by Simon and Garfunkel. It was “The Boxer.”

We sat transfixed as the song played its full five minutes.

At 23 and headed to a war zone, that song hit my emotions hard.

I have loved it ever since.

More than 50 years later that song remains timeless.

One of the lyrics I love is: “A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.”

How true. In this age of constant spin that remains a cautionary message.

What does this have to do with the law?

I describe the law most simply as “a formal method of finding fact.”

Juries and judges at the trial court level are presented evidence. It is tested at trial to hopefully eliminate mere opinion or untruths from provable fact.

There are rules of evidence that help the process. Hearsay is not allowed as it is the basis of rumor and unreliable.

Cross examination is allowed to test the memory and believability of the testimony provided.

Opposing parties may present contrary evidence.

These are rules as to who has the onus of convincing the fact finder (the jury or judge,) that what they allege is more likely true and by what degree.

There are burdens of proof which must be met in order to prevail on the facts. (In criminal cases, for example, that standard is “beyond a reasonable doubt.”)

When those time-tested rules are followed verdicts are usually correct.

If good faith adherence to the process is disregarded the result may well be unfortunate.

In a recent case U.S. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito cited as a fact some history that had not been tested or even raised at any court level, nor by any party to the case.

He based his opinion, at least in part, on that “fact.”

The fact he cited was not true.

If it had been raised at a lower court someone would have shown it to be untrue.

The Justice, however, had “heard what he wanted to hear and disregarded the rest.”

Where did he hear it from? It was not in the case until he claimed it as a fact.

At some point down the road that decision will be revisited and the “facts” upon which the decision was based reviewed.

The decision might then be reversed. In the interim the ruling may wrongly impact many because it is a Supreme Court decision.

All courts must make sure that they, in good faith, ensure that trials are fair and that the proper presentation of evidence is allowed.

The rule of law requires that.

A judge’s ability to hear not merely what he or she “wants to hear” is the foundation of law, and is our best guarantee of justice.

______________________

Ken Williams is a retired Clallam County Superior Court judge and a member of the board of Clallam-Jefferson County Pro Bono Lawyers, clallamcountybar.com/pro-bono/.

Do you have a legal question, or a suggestion for a topic to be addressed by LegalEase?

Email editor@sequim gazette.com with the subject line LegalEase.