Steve Palmer [00:00:00]:
Alright. Steve Palmer here with another episode of Lawyer Talk, What's the Appeal? Couple things first. Check us out at lawyertalkpodcast.com. If you've got a question or topic you want us to cover, you can, submit it there. Go to any of the socials. We're on YouTube, and people are following our other content, which includes a couple other series like They Don't Teach You That in Law School, some breakdowns. Anyway, check it out. A lot of great content.
Steve Palmer [00:00:22]:
They watch the appeal series. The idea here is, I I do criminal defense work, and there's a lot of folks who call me, and I I focus a lot on sort of the post conviction appellate realm. And I I'm doing a series here just to just to break it down and describe to people, how that works. And today, I'm gonna talk about oral arguments and and what they are and what they aren't. And those who have followed the series know that I I've I've talked about the direct appeal, and I I always use the analogy of different ladders. So now I'm talking about on each ladder, whether it's on the post conviction side, or habeas corpus in some states, or on the direct appeal side, There's always a ladder, and eventually, that ladder leads to an oral argument or most of the time, an oral argument with the court of appeals. Now what happens in an oral argument? First of all, what doesn't happen in an oral argument? There are no witnesses called. Called.
Steve Palmer [00:01:11]:
There it's not like the prosecutor is gonna call witnesses or the alleged victim or the cops who testified against the individual during the trial, and we get to ask them questions. That not what that's not what this is. And I'm not saying this to I'm not saying this to oversimplify it, but a lot of people get confused. People think, alright. It's an appeal. I'll get to retry the case or there'll be witnesses called. It doesn't happen that way. What we've done on the direct appeal, and really on by the time we get to the oral argument phase, we have presented to the court of appeals.
Steve Palmer [00:01:39]:
We have talked to the court of appeals about, in writing about where the mistakes are, where we believe the courts below, the trial court below made a legal error. They didn't admit evidence that they should have admitted or they admitted evidence that they shouldn't have admitted or maybe the lawyers made a mistake that amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel or any of a multitude of other, problems that could occur. And we're at the oral argument talking to in Ohio here at the direct appeal, typically a three judge panel. So there's more than three that's in on the various courts of appeal, but three of them are assigned to hear the case. And they sit up sort of high and and mighty on their bench, and they listen to the arguments. And if I'm the person who appealed, I'm the appellant or the defendant who's appealing, I get to go first. And I say, if it please the court, I'm gonna talk to you about the, mistakes that happened below. And then I I explain to them why I think there was a mistake.
Steve Palmer [00:02:31]:
It's not just a recitation. At least, I don't make it just a recitation about what we argued in writing in our legal briefs. That's boring. And they and with all due respect, the courts can read that anyway. They don't need me to regurgitate that. I try to put meat on the bone. I try to give it a little bit of, personality. I try to I I try to make it real.
Steve Palmer [00:02:51]:
I try to explain to them in a compelling way why I think we're right and, most important, why I think we should win. You know, there's this notion that, the the the circumstances and facts behind it aren't as important because, after all, it's a legal argument, and we're here to talk about academic stuff. But I firmly believe that if you're gonna win your appeal at all, it's an uphill fight no matter where you are. But if you're gonna win your appeal, you have to be able to point out the inequities. Now I'm not talking about equity is getting used in today's day and age. I'm talking about things that don't seem fair or right about the trial. In other words, it's a lot you have a lot better chance of winning an appeal if we can explain to the court, in a way that convinces them. Sometimes I can try to convince them, look.
Steve Palmer [00:03:35]:
We may have gotten it wrong down here. My client might actually be innocent, not guilty at all, or not if I can't if I can't bridge that gap, then I can at least try to explain why if we let this stand, if we let this kind of mistake stand, it's got a bigger problem. It's not fair. If if we apply the same mistake here in perpetuity going forward, then, there's a bigger issue that applies beyond this case, and that's certainly what we're gonna be doing if we get to the next step at the highest Supreme Court. So the oral argument is rather quick and, you know, I get fifteen minutes. I would typically reserve a couple of minutes for rebuttal. I get to talk. The state or the prosecutor gets to talk, and then I get to rebut.
Steve Palmer [00:04:15]:
Often, you get a judge panel that will, interrupt. They'll they'll ask us questions. I like that because, through the q and a process, it's a very compelling way to, advocate for your client. A great a great exercise, if you're all curious, is to go Google it and and listen to and or watch US Supreme Court arguments. I think you can only listen to them. I do this from, time to time. I'll go if I'm reading a US Supreme Court decision out of curiosity and maybe I'm just a geek. I like to go listen to the oral arguments even back in history.
Steve Palmer [00:04:48]:
It's sort of fascinating. And that'll give you a good flavor of what it's like. Anyway, what's the appeal oral argument, today? If you've got your own question beyond appellate work or even if it's about the appeal process, check us out at lawyertalkpodcast.com. Check out the other series too. What's the appeal? Until next time.