Leave the Writing to the Appellate Guys

On 30 March 2009, in Appellate Advocacy, by Peter Smythe

In Dial v. State, 2009 Tex. App. LEXIS 2026, the Ama­ri­llo court of appeals gave this little ins­truc­tion to law­yers who have future busi­ness with the court: We would ask that those appea­ring before this court to cau­tiously proo­fread their briefs for typo­graphi­cal errors, impro­per gram­mar, and ques­tio­na­ble sen­tence struc­ture. So too would we ask them to […]

Tagged with:  

Empirical Study Arguments Stay with the District Court

On 30 March 2009, in Fifth Circuit, by Peter Smythe

With the advent of the Boo­ker case, defense law­yers have asser­ted myriads of new argu­ments for sen­tence reduc­tions for their clients. One of those argu­ments has been the empi­ri­cal study argu­ment; cer­tain Gui­de­li­nes are not entit­led to the nor­mal appe­llate pre­sump­tion of rea­so­na­ble­ness because they are not based upon empi­ri­cal stu­dies, but rather man­da­tes from Congress […]

 

Puckett: Plain Error May Apply to Government Breaches

On 27 March 2009, in Federal Criminal Law, by Peter Smythe

In Puc­kett v. Uni­ted Sta­tes, the Supreme Court faced the issue of whether Rule 52(b), the plain-​error stan­dard of review, applies to a for­fei­ted claim that the Govern­ment has vio­la­ted the terms of a plea agree­ment. The Supreme Court ans­we­red “yes.” James Puc­kett was indic­ted on char­ges of armed bank rob­bery and using a firearm during and […]

Tagged with:  
Page 1 of 3123