That's something Justice Stevens actually said during oral argument yesterday. When the lawyer, Franny Forsman, said "no," he commented [referring to a moot court he attended at her law school a while back]: "It was an awfully good moot court."
Presumably, that means: You do realize that you are bound to lose, don't you?
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
७ टिप्पण्या:
Alternative meaning: Any moot court without you is a good moot court.
IANAL,
So, I really don't understand how this case even got cert ... unless of course you believe that just because we might have to retry some folks we should allow past injustices to just sit there - and only offer complete justice to new defendants.
Why would the Supreme Court even entertain an argument that boils down to "this might cause us to have to revisit some cases."
Justice has either been denied, or not ... irrespective of the problems such injustices cause the courts and prosecutors.
Right?
Does it really matter that some people, who didn't get to face their accusers, would have their convictions overturned? Even if that's a lot of people?
You put an awfully smug spin on Steven's moot court question. It sounds like ordinary lawyer-judge (justice) banter to me. And did you read the end of the article you linked? Stevens was apparently referring to the Notre Dame Law School's moot court program, not Forsman's argument.
Of course Forsman was almost certainly going to lose. That doesn't mean she wasn't right, or that Stevens was berating her.
"So, I really don't understand how this case even got cert."
There is a presumption that any criminal case from the 9th circuit will be granted cert so the Supreme Court can reverse it.
"Why would the Supreme Court even entertain an argument that boils down to "this might cause us to have to revisit some cases."
Because this issue comes up every time the SCt announces a new criminal-law rule. The finality of judgments is a legitimate matter for the Court to take into consideration. The number of cases affected is not small, and the criminal justice system is overburdened as it is.
The Court draws the line by finding that some of its decisions affect substantive rights, while others are procedural in nature. The procedural decisions aren't retroactive. The distinction is somewhat arbitrary, and won't satisfy Slim999's objections, but they can't make everything retroactive, no matter how good Forsman was in moot court.
tjl said...
"There is a presumption that any criminal case from the 9th circuit will be granted cert so the Supreme Court can reverse it."
The so-called "Writ of Reinhardt".
At SCOTUSblog, Lyle Denison interpreted Stevens' comment as being high praise. I'll trust Lyle's characterization over that of the Indidiated Press' any day of the week.
A long time ago, when still young enough to be outraged about every damn thing, I contested a speeding ticket. I presented charts and graphs and exhibit A and so forth. The policeman was standing in one speed zone and pointing his gun into the preceding speed zone, after all.
After the dog was dead and the pony was tired... GUILTY!
The bailiff leads you to another room to pay the fine. He chuckled a little under his breath, and said:
"Nice try kid, but between you and me, that's The Guilty Room.
But I really think the judge got a kick out of you."
So I have that going for me.
Vee: I'm not saying he was berating her, but it was a strange thing to say and actually patronizing in my view. Why waste time at oral argument on that and on the fact that he did a moot court at her school?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा