In memoriam: William W. Greenhalgh.

AuthorKramer, John R.
PositionIncludes three testimonials

William W. Greenhalgh joined the faculty of the Georgetown University Law Center in 1963. Unlike many law professors, Professor Greenhalgh never seemed to reflect the ivory towers of academia, but rather revealed the nuts and bolts of pragmatic law. From the moment a Georgetown student encountered him during first year criminal procedure through the Criminal Justice Clinic experience, Professor Greenhalgh concentrated on minuscule detail rather than grand theory. Many students who emerged from his first year class loved him and many hated him, but all respected him and knew that they had survived something special and completed a legal rite of passage. This--preparing these students to be effective lawyers--was Professor Greenhalgh's grand theory.

The more perceptive of his students also realized a special trait in Professor Greenhalgh that is too often missing in law school faculty--he really cared about students as people and as future lawyers. His concern for his past students was clear to the Editor in Chief of this journal when offers were made to new staff members. Within a week of the completion of write-on, the inevitable messages from "Greenhalgh" inquiring about offers to students in his section and his former research assistants would begin. His measure of the journal staff's ability to evaluate write-ons was closely correlated to the names he received on this list. This year's calls will be missed.

Professor Greenhalgh became affiliated with the American Criminal Law Review as faculty advisor in 1978. His perception of this role was perfectly suited to a student-run journal--he left us alone until we made a mistake and then backed us to the hilt. His dedication to criminal jurisprudence made him proud of his role, but he never interfered as we floundered our way toward producing a legal journal. When the need arose, however, he always stood ready to lend his considerable influence to our cause.

It is fitting that this issue of the journal be dedicated to Professor Greenhalgh because it perfectly reflects him and his legal affections. The symposium, which was conducted the weekend after his death, embodies his principal concerns about fairness in the criminal justice system. The diversity of opinion represented by the symposium participants reflects his dedication to the adversarial process that to him would, if properly and fairly conducted, always end in the best result.

I hope the tributes contained in the volume reflect the man and the lawyer that Professor Greenhalgh was. They were solicited to provide a glimpse of Professor Greenhalgh as viewed from outside Georgetown, by a Law Center colleague and from the perspective of a former student. I think they succeed. Finally, the most important piece of this memorial issue is Professor Greenhalgh's own article which was completed shortly before his death. It is an honor to publish it because it reflects him as a Fourth Amendment historian, a colleague of Supreme Court Justices, and, probably most importantly to his memory because it is co-authored by a former student, a law school professor dedicated to helping his students reach their full legal potential.

It is always difficult to memorialize an individual who made great contributions while avoiding the publicity of center stage. It is particularly difficult when the person, by design or nature, shielded these gifts in a complex and often difficult personality. Hopefully, this issue properly portrays Professor Greenhalgh and his contributions to the American Criminal Law Review, the Georgetown University Law Center, and the entire legal community. It is published in his memory and in the spirit of justice he embodied.

BY THE TIME OF HIS DEATH, BILL GREENHALGH HAD TRIUMPHED

He triumphed over those in legal education who disagreed with his highly non-neutral ends. He did not want to play Socrates just to train students to become sharpshooters on behalf of the highest bidders for their talents, helping those who already had more than enough. He wanted to provide those students who were serious about obtaining them, the skills necessary to defend the least among us against the prosecutorial forces of the federal, state, and local governments. The faculty mocked his single-minded devotion to using the resources of legal education to further this objective. They consistently voted down his efforts to bestow tenure upon clinical teachers, to hire more clinicians, and to expand the clinical and criminal law and procedure curricula. But he kept coming back. He persisted, and he persisted.

Ultimately, he triumphed. Look at the legion of students of the past thirty-plus years who acknowledge and praise his influence. Bill's heart was in Georgetown and with his students. He cared for them beyond any of the rest of us. He invested more time and energy and concern in their performance in school, in the courts, and in the legal world than any of his colleagues. The rest of us played at being teachers. His was a real commitment. Teaching (other than tennis and wine) was his whole life, not some part-time diversion from clients or cases or public service. He did it superbly, as witnessed by the legion of Georgetown alumni who hear his voice whenever they prepare for trial and can never drown it out.

Bill triumphed over those in legal education who condemned his means as old-fashioned, as inappropriate. He wanted his students to learn. He demanded that they learn. He was a politically incorrect drill sergeant, ordering them to stand and deliver, forcing them to recite the facts of Wong Sun until both they and the fruit of the poisoned tree were blue from exertion. His critics knew better. That was an old-fashioned, 19th century method that could not succeed. It was not experimental...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT