- I served as a Justice of the California Court of Appeal for 35 years before transitioning to appellate practice at the beginning of this year. Since then, I have been thinking a great deal about some of the lessons and advice I can bring to bear. This discussion will be about oral argument. Because so much of appellate decision-making turns on the briefs, when does oral argument really matter? The answer must be when an oral argument changes a result the panel expects to issue, or at least changes the scope or type of relief it gives.
- although rare, oral argument can change an outcome if there are facts the panel missed (counsel must always have a mastery of the record at argument), a context the briefing did not convey, or an idea that resonates with the jurists' sense of fundamental justice. That is an especially important point: it can matter if counsel offers the justices a powerful perspective that was not in the briefs and alters the prism through which they see the events.
US Courts reports: New Supreme Court Fellows Begin Term
- The Supreme Court Fellows Program, established by the late Chief Justice Warren E. Burger in 1973, provides participants the opportunity to gain a greater understanding of the federal Judiciary. Fellows work alongside top officials in the judicial branch on projects that further the goals of the Judiciary.
- One Fellow has a 9th Circuit connection: Joshua D. Blecher-Cohen is assigned to the Supreme Court’s Office of the Counselor to the Chief Justice. He served as a law clerk for 9th Circuit Judge Marsha Berzon.
Here's an unpub'd decision from 4/3 that addresses appealability and tweaks a party for not providing precise page citations (often called "jump cites" or "pincites"): "Tsai offers two cases (but no pincites) to support her claim of appealability"
Posts
