Reason Number Five: This is a "trick" reason. It is actually a reason to waive oral argument and the only one I find acceptable. If you feel that engaging in oral argument will make your chances less of winning on appeal, then you probably should not do it.
Full Answer
Oral argument may reveal whether a party should file a supplemental brief to clarify issues the court finds particularly troubling or, in the worst scenario, whether counsel should recommend that his client settle the case. Litigants may waive the right to present oral argument.
Oral argument is your chance to clarify the points you made in your brief, tell the appellate court what you think is most important about your arguments, and answer questions from the appellate court judges.
The arguments are an opportunity for the Justices to ask questions directly of the attorneys representing the parties to the case, and for the attorneys to highlight arguments that they view as particularly important.
In federal circuits, a waived argument is intentional, and may not be resurrected on appeal. A forfeited argument results from an inadvertent failure to raise that argument, and may be nonetheless reviewed in very limited circumstances.
Oral arguments give both sides their individual time to present their sides of the case. The federal district courts hear cases involving the Constitution and the federal law. This is a system of lower courts.
An oral argument is an oral presentation attorneys make to the court. It is an opportunity for attorneys to emphasize certain legal points and for the appellate court to ask questions.
Why are oral arguments an important part of the Supreme Court's decision-making process? Correct Answers: Justices can ask questions of attorneys that might not have been addressed in the briefs. They allow justices to better understand the heart of the case.
In so doing, oral arguments can help justices come to terms with what are often complex legal and factual issues. As Justice Blackmun suggests, “A good oralist can add a lot to a case and help us in our later analysis of what the case is all about.
How will the court decide if there are no oral arguments? If all the parties waive oral argument – meaning no parties talk to the justices in person – then the Court of Appeal will decide your appeal based on the briefs, the law, and the record on appeal.
The definition of a waiver is the act of voluntarily giving up rights or privileges, usually through a written statement. An example of waiver is a person signing a form releasing the owners of an event location from liability if the person signing the waiver was injured while at the event. noun.
To expressly waive Miranda rights, the suspect would state (or sign something stating) that they waive the right to remain silent or the right to have an attorney present. Implied waiver means that the suspect behaves in a way that indicates a knowing and voluntary waiver of Miranda rights.
You can still file an appeal after a guilty plea, but you will need to demonstrate that the plea itself was not “knowing, voluntary, and intelligent.” The window for filing an appeal is very short, and there are few exceptions. For this reason, if you are considering an appeal, you need to act immediately.
Occasionally, during oral argument a judge will ask a question that shows a misunderstanding of the record. Correcting it can save your appeal.
Repeating your brief isn't a good reason. They've read it. It either worked or it didn't. If it didn't, you need to do something different in order to accomplish the near-impossible: turn around strong, made-up minds.
Most lawyers orally argue as if the judges' minds were blank slates. But they are not. In fact, the judges are well past reading the briefs. They have read them, and they have also discussed the case with people they respect: their law clerks and sometimes their fellow judges. In fact, almost every California appellate court has already drafted the opinion. And that draft opinion is sitting in front of each judge, and many of their questions come straight from the opinion.
Oral argument is expensive. It takes hours of preparation, which your client (or you) must pay for. And it delays issuance of the decision. (Many courts give you a quicker decision if you waive oral argument.)
They have their law clerks prepare bench memoranda. Some chambers are even result oriented with the judge suggesting the outcome to the law clerk and having them work backwards to justify it. Oral argument is our one chance to make a case stand out from all the other boring cases and appeals a judge is handling. If you don't care enough to argue the case, how can you expect the judge to care about your client?
Appellant could not be there because he is serving a life sentence, but his family was there. I think it makes it harder for the justices to come out with a disingenuous opinion when the criminal defense attorney is there to fight against it.
Despite the fact that we are lawyers, many of us still have a fear of speaking in public. I have seen many cases of paralysis, approaching a stroke, in the appellate courtroom. If you are a lawyer who suffers from this phobia and thought that you were going to be able to hide in the back of the law library all the time, have no fear. There are many organizations that can you get over this fear. And I will be glad to share my helpful tips on how to get through an oral argument with anyone personally. I have done seven before the California Supreme Court and hundreds in the lower appellate courts.