HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Question for court knowle...

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 02:25 PM

Question for court knowledgeable people re Wisconsin hearing.

My expertise stops at the old Perry Mason in the 60's. I am very frustrated with WI supreme court conservative justices for being a pain for Tony Evers and making covid here much worse than it needed to be.

But the conservatives judges seem to be interrupting the lawyers a lot and are coming across as condenscendong. Just want some feedback before I email feedback as to the ridiculousness of the court once again. The one I sent to them last night let them know what a laughing stock they are and that they should not have used the WI Tavern league as a source to put all our lives at risk.

I may be biased...

7 replies, 604 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread

Response to Tech (Original post)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 02:27 PM

1. you haven;t been in many courtrooms have you? Its not like TV

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beachbumbob (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 02:32 PM

2. No, just for a divorce. I am aware I am ignorant, which is why I asked the question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tech (Reply #2)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 03:45 PM

7. I have been on 2 murder trials and an armed robbery trial juries

 

ands it's an eye opener.

I watch judges give our harsh words to DAs and defense attorneys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tech (Original post)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 02:48 PM

3. This is the way appellate courts operate.

The lawyers will have already submitted briefs, which the judges will have read before the oral argument. The briefs set out the facts of the case and arguments as to why the law applies to those facts. They are obligated to provide citations to authorities (statutes or previous cases) supporting their legal arguments. I was a law clerk for an appellate judge, and it was my job to read the parties' briefs, look up all the supporting authorities the briefs cite, and write a memo to the judge summarizing the parties' arguments to read before the lawyers' oral arguments. The purpose of the oral arguments is to give the lawyers an opportunity to elaborate on the arguments presented in their briefs, and the judges a chance to dig into those arguments, find weaknesses and force the lawyers to defend their positions. After that's over the judges hold a conference and decide how they are going to decide the case. The clerk for the judge assigned to the case will then draft an opinion for that judge to work from.

Appellate arguments are nothing like trials at all. What you might have seen on TV is not in the least like what happens in appellate proceedings (and I don't think I've ever seen an appellate argument on a TV show because they are usually too esoteric and devoid of action for general consumption). When an appellate judge puts a lawyer on the spot, he or she is doing his/her job by forcing the lawyer to defend his/her position. Don't go writing to the judges; you'll just look like an idiot because you don't understand what's supposed to be happening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 02:53 PM

4. I figured, which is why I asked knowing there is a lot of experience here.

Thank you for spelling it out in laymens terms for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tech (Reply #4)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 03:32 PM

6. I encourage you to write to the Judges.

Theyíre human. Theyíre elected. If you assume that they are doing their jobs and doing them properly, you can focus your comments on the apparent INJUSTICE that you see/sense/feel. They may not rule your way (this time), but they do take seriously their roles as arbiters of justice, and they donít get many letters from their constituents. They might like to hear from you.

With due respect to my Velveteen colleague, this is my contrary perspective (also from a Judgeís former clerk).

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tech (Original post)

Sat Dec 12, 2020, 03:21 PM

5. It's natural for Judges to interrupt, especially at the appellate level.

Thatís usually not a bad thing. Oftentimes, the Judge will interrupt to solicit from you the exact information that Judge needs to rule in your favor. I usually welcome a Judgeís interruptions.

Judges are almost always condescending. Theyíre Judges. They have the right and the power to decide your case. They ARE superior to you in that sense, but, in my experience, what is often perceived as condescension is more often ordinary frustration. When Judge isnít getting the precise information that he or she needs to make a ruling (or when Judge asks attorney the same question three times and canít get a straight answer), Judge can get snippy. Thatís frustration, I think, more than anything else.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread