Introduction
Oral argument has long been a significant aspect of the appellate decision-making process. For a long time, oral argument, which is at the heart of the English appellate tradition, predated written briefs in the United States and recommenced unabated despite the introduction of written debates, which was unnecessary. The Supreme Court changed its policy from allowing oral and written arguments to be swapped, as seen by the Court’s waiver of oral argument, to requiring written arguments to be submitted before oral arguments. By the turn of the era, when the recent briefing of the adversary required process had been fully established, oral argument was reserved for the most critical topics. The paper examines in depth the viewpoints of lawyers and judges from two federal courts on various features of oral argument. It is part of a more extensive examination into the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the Court of moot based on cases heard.
The Case of the United States of America vs. Edward Cragg
The United States v. Edward Cragg case was heard in the United States Courts for the Ninth Circuit on March 4, 2020. A panel of three judges, Siler, Ward law, And M. Smith, listened to the case and decided to uphold the Lawrence J. O’Neill, Chief district court judge’s decision. The debate lasted about an hour and a half, and it focused on two main issues. The first point concerned whether Cragg knew the substance of the charges leveled against him, while the second concerned whether he was coerced into accepting his charges. It is difficult to predict the judges’ ruling in this case, although the proceedings appear to have favored the plaintiff. The panel addressed tough questions throughout, especially on both sides of the standoff problem. The government bears the burden of proving the waiver was made with the knowledge and intent of the plaintiff. A substantial standard requires us to indulge in all reasonable presumptions against disclaimer.
Oral arguments greatly influence the final decision that the Court has to make. Hence the council is expected to be well prepared to present its views to the Court. In this case, the panel proved to have a high-quality argument as they provided facts and argued on the judge’s decision. For instance, the lawyer theorized that Cragg was not entirely directed to the Court rules. Concerning the counsel’s preparedness and professionalism, they were adequately equipped with evidence and demonstrated a high level of professionalism while debating the case. The counsel was formal and did not use words that could affect the other party. They presented their evidence in handbooks, reports, and through the constitution. In responsiveness to the question, they were active as it could be speculated how well they were in the field.
The three judges well endorsed the argument of the case. As the case was ongoing, it was identified that the judges were part of the debate as they would consider asking questions on where they required more clarification. On their professional, they still maintained as more of debating was not on their side but to that of counsel and the advocates. The advocates did not receive time warning as they were keen to schedule their time for argument.
Cragg claims that his conviction should be overturned. The case was remanded for a new trial because he did not intentionally and intelligently forgo his right to trial counsel responded to the Court’s queries. Audette stated that he had read the indictment and was aware of the charges against him. On the other hand, the government cannot locate any part of the record. The district court either informed Cragg of the potential sanctions or asked him to know them before his waiver. Instead, the government prefers us to Cragg’s arraignment before a magistrate judge, available online. The district court judge did explore the potential implications, but Cragg seemed not to understand them. Furthermore, the plaintiff that the lawyer has requested against reviewing the entire record and instead focuses on the defendant’s understanding of court protocols. The forms at Cragg did not indicate that he understood the potential penalties before he purportedly waived his right to counsel. As a result, the government has failed to discharge its burden of demonstrating that Cragg’s Faretta waiver was informed and deliberate.
There is also no evidence in the record that Edward was aware of the potential consequences when he waived counsel. The district judge did not address the potential penalties until he heard the demand for a jury trial. They overturn Cragg’s conviction and remand him for a new trial because the inability to meet the prerequisites for a valid Faretta waiver constituted per se prejudicial error. Given the remand, the only remaining question in this appeal is whether Cragg’s pre-arrest comments to law enforcement should have been suppressed because they were made involuntarily. Cragg claims that he made his pre-arrest remarks involuntarily due to officials’ threats that he would face repercussions if he exercised his right to remain silent. According to Cragg, Redd allegedly threatened him with harsher treatment if he exercised his right to keep quiet. At least two judges appeared to be critical of the argument, implying that the Court might examine the defender’s cooperation. The team as a whole performed an excellent job of presenting compelling arguments. As there were no defined charges against the government, the case was ruled in favor of the defendant.
Cases in Court of Moot
In the moot Court, subjects are challenging, frequently more complex than some lawyers would ever face in their professions. However, the challenging, issue-laden, and contentious themes presented in the moot Court necessitate strategic debate as well as legal reasoning. It results in passionate advocacy and hands-on learning. Despite its advantages, moot Court has its detractors, as outlined in the clip. The criteria and scoring procedures used in moot court tournaments, which change from competition to competition, are sometimes unjust. Furthermore, judges are uneven in rating; some score on the merits regardless of regulations extortionate such judgment. Others are unprepared, apathetic, inexperienced, preoccupied with the irrelevant, or too pushy in their questioning.
The second portion of the moot court encounter, oral argument, allows contestants to build on their drafted submissions and expound on how they worked through the case’s contingencies to achieve their conclusions. In this Court, competitors are ready to aid moot court judges in dealing with their uncertainties by delivering quick and direct answers to their questions. Furthermore, they are more than great, superficial orators who highlight the crucial points of their brief while emphasizing form over substance to achieve this goal. The Advocates provide instances to back up their claims and have a rudimentary understanding of the facts. Following the conclusion of the discussion, the typical moot Court reintroduces the initial theme.
Conclusion
While trial advocacy has sustained substantial attention in recent years, the oral appellate has received much consciousness. However, far fewer lawyers engage in it regularly – efforts by federal and state appellate courts to streamline their proceedings to deal with rising caseloads. Lawyers must better understand how judges feel about the issue on oral argument. Furthermore, they should understand the situations in which limited oral discussion is acceptable, or the Court considers avoiding a verbal argument. Judges must also be conscious of lawyers’ worries about oral argument restrictions or deletion.