Why the goverment almost always wins
From time to time people groan that the government wins around 45% of its cases before the Supreme Court. Many times, these same people allege some sort of conspiracy between the OSG and the Court.
However, after listening to at least 100 oral arguments at Oyez, and reading at least 100 briefs before the Court, I know why the government almost always wins: Their briefs and oral arguments are always top flight.
Unfortunately, although every constitutional case before the Supreme Court affects us all; the rules we live often result because of sub-par advocacy. Let's face it, almost no lawyer would turn down the opportunity to argue before the Supreme Court. And of course, no lawyer could ever comprehend his (in)ability to argue before any tribunal. Thus, we get stuck with poor advocacy for a position with which we might agree. We lose because a lawyer put his interest (the bragging rights or other perks of arguing before the Court) above his client's interest. WHen the case was a constitutional one, the lawyer put his own interest above the rights of every American.
Fortunately, the Respondent's brief in Yarborough v. Alvarado (No. 03-1684) (which asks whether age should be a factor in determining whether someone is "in custody" under Miranda), is first class. Alvarado should matter to every person who has a child or younger brother or sister. We teach our children to respect the police, to turn to them we they need help. What we don't teach them is that when the police want to talk to you; your only option is to pull out your bust card.
I know of one case where young person shot a drug dealer. Em then ditches the gun; goes to the police station to them what happened; and gives a full statement. The reward for em turning to the police was that the prosecution sought and obtained the statutorily allowed maximum sentence. The irony is that had em lawyered-up and kept quiet, the prosecution would have offered a sweetheart deal because the only eye-witness was the girlfriend/crack-***** of the drug dealer.
A blog devoted to law, politics, philosophy, & life. Nothing in this blog is to be construed as legal advice.
Followers
Blog Archive
-
▼
2004
(138)
- ► 05/02 - 05/09 (1)
- ► 04/18 - 04/25 (2)
- ► 04/11 - 04/18 (2)
- ► 04/04 - 04/11 (4)
- ► 03/28 - 04/04 (8)
- ► 03/21 - 03/28 (6)
- ► 03/14 - 03/21 (5)
- ► 02/29 - 03/07 (7)
- ► 02/22 - 02/29 (7)
- ► 02/15 - 02/22 (22)
- ► 02/08 - 02/15 (21)
-
▼
02/01 - 02/08
(17)
- Application of the Fourth Amendment to federal gra...
- I like this guy's style. Mark provides million-do...
- Even better than TV The CATO Institute archives m...
- Why the goverment almost always wins From time to...
- A good chuckle. One of the reasons the government...
- "Students host coming out day" These days, coming...
- Congress and federal crimes. A great exercise in ...
- Challenge to Sentencing Rules Rebuffed ...So begi...
- Job Opening The National Federation of Independen...
- SSA SDRAWKCAB. This person , who said: "The 'over...
- Annoyed It annoys me to find myself agreeing with...
- Legal Humor? View this article here on Amicus Hum...
- More on recess appointments from the Office of Leg...
- Howard "How Appealing" Bashman's Press Release for...
- "Free Martha Now" Interesting commentary on the M...
- Poisoned well? Or frivolous lawyer gets cat scratc...
- Prison loaf. Ugh. Via CrimLaw, I was linked to th...
- ► 01/25 - 02/01 (23)
- ► 01/18 - 01/25 (5)
- ► 01/11 - 01/18 (1)
- ► 01/04 - 01/11 (7)
-
►
2003
(14)
- ► 12/28 - 01/04 (6)
- ► 12/21 - 12/28 (8)