Imperfect Game: What a Former NJ Judge’s Class About an Infamous Pitching Call Can Teach Litigators

“In the history of our law, there are so many cases where precedent began with a loss and a dissent, and even though it did not change something at that moment, it created a building block,” former Ocean County Superior Court Judge Lawrence R. Jones said.

A former Superior Court judge and his prelaw class at Monmouth University found themselves in the middle of an ESPN episode after they challenged Major League Baseball on a bad call that stripped a Detroit Tigers pitcher of a rare accomplishment: becoming just the 21st pitcher ever to throw a perfect game.

Former Ocean County Superior Court Judge Lawrence R. Jones took on the MLB with his class of undergrads, guiding them to investigate a bad call that robbed Armando Galarraga of what should have been a perfect game. ESPN featured the report, “28 Outs: An Imperfect Story,”on its “E60″ program. The episode featured interviews with Jones, some of his students, and more than 30 players, coaches, fans and MLB executives, including Commissioner Rob Manfred.

On June 2, 2010, Galarraga was just one out away from perfection when first base umpire Jim Joyce called Cleveland Indians player Jason Donald safe at first. The ESPN episode clearly and repeatedly showed that Joyce was wrong. That play should have been the last in the game—out No. 27. But this was before umpires could review calls on base paths. Many credit the Donald play with hastening new instant replay rules for the sport.

Jones presented the Galarraga case as a project to his students and aided them in producing an 82-page study to get the pitcher the recognition many believed he deserved. Although the commissioner answered the class in a letter and even met with the students via Zoom, he ultimately rejected their arguments and refused to acknowledge Galarraga’s accomplishment officially.

Jones met with the Law Journal to answer questions on why he chose Galarraga’s case, how the legal community reacted to the publicity, and what attorneys can learn from failure.

Why did you think this project would be meaningful to students thinking about studying law?

I thought this would be a very interesting challenge for the students, especially for students who knew little or nothing about baseball or sports. It was really a legal analysis, not a sports-minded analysis.

To me, good attorneys develop critical thinking skills, innovative or creative ways of thinking, and problem-solving abilities. That’s what they do when they become professionals.

What lessons or takeaways from the experience do you think would benefit the students as someday practicing litigators?

When the students were working on the project, they considered the possibility that if their work product was strong, it might be submitted to the MLB commissioner. A lot of the students thought that possibility was a little far-fetched. I try to encourage those students to think about the possibility that what they’re learning in college can have a very important life outside of the four walls of the classroom.

Whether you win or lose on any particular issue is not as important as trying because you never quite know where something is going to end up. A representative from the Chicago Bar Association just asked the students to speak at an event next year, and they are not even lawyers yet.

Were you surprised that it was unsuccessful after the students made a strong case for including Galarraga on the record board?

Part of the lesson of the class is that you can work hard on a case, believe in the case, and put on a fantastic argument, and you can still lose. Just like lawyers in real life could put their heart and soul into a case, do a 100% spectacular job, and still lose because either the judge or the jury just didn’t see it your way for any number of reasons.

You have already had a long career, but is there anything you learned about the law from this experience through the eyes of your students?

If you allow students to develop something, create something, and argue something, they can do an outstanding job. You have students out there who are great, sharp, young minds with a lot of energy who are really fascinated with the law. That is why they go into law, in large part.

But the biggest surprise is just how much the story resonated with people who didn’t have that much of a focus on sports to begin with.

What do you think of the commissioner’s decision?

When I was on the bench in family court for many years, I had the discretion to do something or not do something in almost every case that came before me. I know all those decisions may not have made everybody happy, but you have to do your best. And Commissioner Manfred has the discretion to decide.

However, I don’t agree with his position, and I think adding Galarraga to the list with an explanatory note of the official Major League Baseball records is equitable and appropriate. But he is the commissioner, and the students and I are not, so we have to go with his decision. That is just part of life.

After the students presented an impressive case for Galarraga’s inclusion on the record board, they lost anyway. What are the key takeaways from that kind of failure?

As with any case, if you’re going to try to advocate for a cause and you do not win, it does not mean that you failed. It does not mean that there was any kind of an error. It simply means that your position has not yet been accepted. In the history of our law, there are so many cases where precedent began with a loss and a dissent, and even though it did not change something at that moment, it created a building block for the next case or opportunity. Many of our precedential cases at the Supreme Court level started with a prior decision that was a dissent or a prior loss, which ultimately became something different.

So, in this particular case, while Commissioner Manfred had every right to decide whether or not to include Galarraga on the list, the argument is out there. Perhaps this commissioner will someday change his mind, or the next commissioner may have a fresh opportunity to look at it based on the groundwork laid out by the Monmouth University students.

There is always the possibility that the story isn’t over.