Robert Richard Thornton - Voice For The Defense Online

Court's interest in an issue.= At the conclusionof his argument, counsel should notmake open-ended requests for questionsfrom the Court on issues that have not beenargued. Counsel, after all, presumably hasalready requested oral argument on thoseissues he supposed worthy of oral argument.Although few lawyers thought so at thetime, one of the most critical coursesoffered in law school was Remedies 101,or some version thereof. Equally as criticalin an appellate argument is the prayeror reauest for relief. Does counsel seek anacquittal, a reversal, a vacate and remandorder, an affirmance, etc.? Whom doescounsel want to reverse or aftinn-the trialcourt, the court of appeals, the Court ofCriminal Appeals on rehearing? In short,counsel should know what remedy he isseeking." He should make it crystal clearto the Court and not get lost in the fog ofambivalent or alternative remedies.The procers of presenting oral argumentrequires an imaginative, diligent effort onthe part of attorneys. However, by makingjudicious use of oral argument, attorneysshould be able to affect and. indeed.improve the jurisprudential process itself:Effective oral argument will insure that appellatejudges receive not only accurate anduseful research but also information thatis persuasive in its artful presentation.I. Of mme, n crit~:inal Jcfcndaa's pcrwnal contactwith ihecoun is grwrally through his legalrepresentative because he has no constihrtionalright topresent his own oral argument before anappellate coun. Webb v. Slate. 533 S.W.Zd780,784-85 (Tex.Cr.App. 1976); Tookev. Srate. 23Tex.App. 10, 3 S.W. 782 (1887). CJ Anicle44.03, V.A.C.C.P. (Supp, 1986). repeated byV.A.C.S., art. 1811f. $4 (Supp. 1986) ("Thedefendant nced not be personally present upunthe hearingofhiscausein.. .thecourtof CriminalAppeals, but if not injail, he may appear inperson.'?. However, the Court of Criminal Appealsoccasionally allows adefendant topresenthis own aral argument. See Lenlry v. State, 13S.W.2d 874,884 Cl'ex.Cr.App. 1928) (opiniononrehearing). In fact, inthelast term, thecourtheard aral argument fmm a defendant who dividedhis time with his atlorney.2. Justices from the United States Supreme Courthave regularly offered their own suggestions forpresenting an effective oral argument before theirwun. See, e.g., Rehnquist, Oral Adsocac). 27S. 'Ter L. Kcv. 280 (1986); Powell, 77rr Ixvdof.%prw!,r C,,unAd,nvocy. Speech at 1:ifth Clr.Jud. Cmf. fMav 27. 1974): Harlan. IVl~rrr PurlAdwacy Before the Supreme Cow: Suggesliowfor Effecliw Gme Prerenrorions, 37 A.B.A.J.sol ii951).Justices from the Texas Supreme Coun havealso published their thoughts on oral argumentin their court. See, e.g., Spears, Pmenthtg anEffcc~he Appeal, 2K1) Trial 95 (1985); Greenhill,Advocacy in the Terns Suprenre Court, 44Tex. B.I. 624 (1981).3. See Tex. R. App. Pro. 220, 49 Tex. B.I. 558(1986) (hereinafter "Rule"). The Court has notspecifically excluded any cause fmm being arguedorally.Presumably, then, counsel can successfullyrequest oral argument in any causeaccepted for submission. Cf: Rule 750 ('Thcmurt of appeals may, in its discretion, advancecivil cases for submission withcat oral argumentwhere oral acgumeent would not materially aidthe court in he determination of the issues oflaw and faet presented in the appeal.'?.4. Rule 222(a).5. Rule 220. The Clerk generally mails notice tothe parks after the appell~le briefs have beenfiled. As a oractical matter. the Clerk reaucststhat rounscl rcspund within IS &ys uf notice.Simply including a wquest for oral aryumrnt inthe briefmay not be sufficient to comply withtherules. Cf: Rule75(9 ("A pany to the appealdeslnng oral argument [in the cow of appeals]shall file a request therefor st the time he fileshis brief 1n the case.'?.6 A motion requesting special consideration is nota "cause" subject to oral argument See Rule-.-\-, 212fA7. Rule 230(b).8. Rule 230(e).9. See Wasby, llie F~utctionsa~~dfinpoTfot~ce ofAppellateOral Argumnl: Smae Ken's oflawjersm,dFederalJlrdaes. 65 Judicature 340,351 352(198a); ~odbord, ntmy pages 02 TW,~).Mitrrrres-Effec0'r.e Ad~~oeneyo~~ Appe~l. 30 Sw.L.J. 801, 801-02 (1976).10. In 1985, outof 352 subminod causes, 144 or40.9pereent were orally argued. By contrast, the FifthCircuit has "made 'extensive use of truncatedprocedures,'with haoral argument in a high percentageof cases." Wasby, suprn note 9. at 34911.41.11. If an attorney is unable to attend aral argument,then he should notify the Clcrk of the Court atleast a week in advance of the argument date.Otherwise, counsel wastes Ule timeand resourcesof the Caurt and risks committing contemptuousconduct.12. Weaver, quored if, Sheldon & Weaver, PoLmCIANS. JUOOES. AND THE PEOPLE: A STUDY ~iCmZ6Ns PARTICIPATION 86 (WestpuCl, COnn.;Greenwwd Press, 1980).13. In a recont survey of federal circuit mun judges,only nine per cent regarded argumem based onsufficiency of the evidence as essential in civilappeals. Wasby, supra note 9, at 349.14. In a survey of lawyen fmm the Semnd, Fifthand Sixth Circuit Courts of Appeals, the lawyers"considered oral argument essential in 'caseswhich involve matters of great public interest(despite the absence of subslantial legal issues)[andl eases involving the constitutionality of astate shlute or a state aclion.*"Zd.., quoting DNry,Gaadman & Stevenson, Anonrrav An1-WDES TOWARD LlbUl'ATIONOF ORAL ARGUMENIAND WRlITEN OmNloNl~ THNB U.S. COURTSOF APPEAL, at 22 rnhington, D.C.: Bureau ofSocial Science Research, 1974).IS. See, e.g., MeOunbdge v Srale. 712 S.W.2d499, 501M n.9 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986).16. Thc Texas Supreme Coun records all oral arguments.17. Rule 222(c).18. Id.19. See Harlan, suprn note 2, at 7. Justice Harlanalso noted: "I amgiving away no secrets, I amsure, when I say that in one of the courts of ap-- . .oeals where1 was assiened to sit lemwrarilv thevoting an the cases took place each day follou,-ing thecloseof thearguments." Id. Using an evenmore radrcal approach, an intermediate Arizo-na &late court has a pallcy of issuing a tentativiwinen opinion to the parlics, allowingthem to argue the correctness of that opiniw.Telephone interview wilh Joyce Goldsmith,Clerk of the Division I1 Court of Appeals, Arizona(Nov. 17, 1986).20. See, Wasby, srrprn note 9, at 347.21. A number ofadvocates mcrit such attention, Theauthors recommend observing the following attorneys,who regularly present effective oral arguments:Chris Manhall, Assistant DistrictAttorney in Travis County; Edwilrd Shaughnessy,Assistant District Attorney in BexarCounty; RonaldGoranson, Defense Attorney inDallas County; and Janet Morrow. Defense Attorneyin Harris County.22. Rulc 221.23. Rule 230(e).24. Rule 212.25. See Tex. Conrt. an. V, S4.Attorneys commonlymake themistake of referring to members of theCourt of Crinlinal Appeals a; "Chieflustice" or"Justices." Those titles are resewed for membersof the Supreme Court. See Tex. Const. an. V,$3.26. Spears, supra none 2, at 97.27. Godbold, wpm note 9, at 809.28. Rule ZW(a).29. Rulc 202(d)(4).30. See McCnmhinge, rrrpra; see also Dcgrate vStnre. 712 S.W.2d755 (Tex.Cr.App. 1986) (percuriam).31. Under the new rules, former "gmunds of error"are now referred toas 'paints of ermr."See Rules74(d) & 21(i(b); Bwdlw s. Srute. No. 69,271,slipop. s1n.l (Tex.Cr.App. October 15, 1986)(not yet rcpaned).32. Rule 221.33. Thereare masions whenquestions from men>bersof the Coun consume themaioritv of mun-. .wl's timc. pwenting \sl~;at ~wighl 113~ IKC~ 14brillisnl argLnwnt. Co~nsel rhuuld not ilrspairii this happns. It is s IAdy ~ign~l that tlw imterest of the Coun has been acutely piqued bythe issue praented.34. See Rules 80,202(k), & 211(c]; cl: Art. 44.24,V.A.C.C P. (Supp. 1986). &pealed byV.A.C S., art. 1811f. $4 (1986).8 VOICE for the Defe,tse / February 1987