Law Commons^™

The Curious, Perjurious Requirements Of Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(B)(3)., Wm. Dennis Huber

Wm. Dennis Huber

A 2010 survey of Illinois Civil Procedure discussed recent amendments to the Illinois Supreme Court Rules that apply to civil practice issues.1 The survey began with Notices of Appeal and a substantial part of the survey of Notices of Appeal was devoted to Secura Insurance Co. v. Illinois Farmers Insurance Co.2 The purpose of this Article is to examine in greater depth the requirements of filing notices of appeal under Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(3) and the corresponding proof of service of Rule 373.

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 12(b)(3) has what can only be called “curious, perjurious requirements.” They are …

Beyond Finality: How Making Criminal Judgments Less Final Can Further The Interests Of Finality, Andrew Chongseh Kim

Andrew Chongseh Kim

Courts and scholars commonly assume that granting convicted defendants more liberal rights to challenge their judgments would harm society’s interests in “finality.” According to conventional wisdom, finality in criminal judgments is necessary to conserve resources, encourage efficient behavior by defense counsel, and deter crime. Thus, under the common analysis, the extent to which convicted defendants should be allowed to challenge their judgments depends on how much society is willing to sacrifice to validate defendants’ rights. This Article argues that expanding defendants’ rights on post-conviction review does not always harm these interests. Rather, more liberal review can often conserve state resources, …

Stare Decisis And Conflicts Between The Divisions Of Washington State Court Of Appeals: Resolving A Problem At The Trial Court Level, Mark Deforrest

Mark DeForrest

The Washington Court of Appeals is a single court that sits in three geographically distinct divisions. A case from a division is binding on trial courts throughout the state, but not on the other divisions within the court of appeals. Conflicts between the divisions occur, placing trial courts in a Catch-22 situation when faced with conflicting authorities from the court of appeals. This article identifies and explains the problem, and provides background information on the history and function of Washington's junior appellate court. The article also identifies and critiques four possible solutions of the problem facing trial courts. Ultimately, the …

Does The Readability Of Your Brief Affect Your Chance Of Winning An Appeal?--An Analysis Of Readability In Appellate Briefs And Its Correlation With Success On Appeal, Lance N. Long, William F. Christensen

Lance N. Long

The study described in this article suggests that the length of sentences and words, which is “readability” for our purposes, probably does not make much difference in appellate brief writing. First, we found that most briefs are written at about the same level of readability; there simply is not much difference in how lawyers write appellate briefs when it comes to the length of sentences and words. Furthermore, the readability of most appellate briefs is well within the reading ability of the highly educated audience of appellate judges and justices. Second, the relatively small differences in readability are not related …

Does Ccp 917.1 Require An Undertaking To Stay A “Costs Only” Judgment ?, Steven J. Andre

Steven J. Andre

No abstract provided.

Clear As Mud: How The Uncertain Precedential Status Of Unpublished Opinions Muddles Qualified Immunity Determinations, David R. Cleveland

David R. Cleveland

While unpublished opinions are now freely citeable under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32.1, their precedential value remains uncertain. This ambiguity muddles the already unclear law surrounding qualified immunity and denies courts valuable precedents for making fair and consistent judgments on these critical civil rights issues. When faced with a claim that they have violated a person’s civil rights, government officials typically claim qualified immunity. The test is whether they have violated “clearly established law.” Unfortunately, the federal circuits differ on whether unpublished opinions may be used in determining clearly established law. This article, Clear as Mud: How the Uncertain …

What We Can Learn About Appeals From Mr. Tillman's Case: More Lessons From Another Dna Exoneration, Giovanna Shay

Giovanna Shay

In 2006, Mr. James Calvin Tillman became the first person in Connecticut to be exonerated through the use of post-conviction DNA testing. He joined a group of DNA exonerees that currently numbers more than 200 nationwide. In many ways, Mr. Tillman’s case is a paradigmatic DNA exoneration—involving a cross-racial mistaken eyewitness identification, issues of race, and faulty forensic testimony. This article uses the published opinions affirming Mr. Tillman’s conviction—particularly his direct appeal to the Connecticut Supreme Court and his appeal from the state habeas proceeding—to reflect on the meaning of appellate and postconviction proceedings. Does Mr. Tillman’s exoneration reveal any …

Reconceptualizing Competence: An Appeal, Mae C. Quinn

Mae C. Quinn

This article builds on contemporary critiques of the justice system’s treatment of the mentally impaired, examining an important issue that until now has gone wholly unaddressed -- the effect of defendant impairment on the criminal appeals process. It argues that conventional wisdom stressing the importance of defendant competence during criminal trials but ignoring the incompetence of defendants during direct appeals makes little sense. Such an approach to defendant capacity not only fails to account for the realities of criminal practice, but works to undermine the fairness and efficacy of the American appellate process. Thus this paper calls for reconceptualization of …

Stepping Up To The Podium With Confidence: A Primer For Law Students On Preparing And Delivering An Appellate Oral Argument, James D. Dimitri

James D. Dimitri

Virtually all law students are required to learn oral advocacy skills at some point during their legal education. Typically, these skills are cultivated through at least one oral argument assignment, which often consists of an appellate oral argument that is given as part of the students' first-year legal research and writing course or as part of a moot court competition.

While appellate courts do not grant oral argument as often as they used to, oral advocacy remains a critical skill for law students to learn and cultivate, no matter which facet of law practice they enter upon graduation. Unfortunately, the …