The audio of Wednesday’s oral argument in United States v. Sanders, No. 09-0013/AF, is now available here. My colleague Tiaundra Sorrell brought down the house with a line during her rebuttal. The audio of Wednesday’s oral argument in United States v. Wiechmann, No. 09-0082/MC–an important case about counsel rights–is available here.

11 Responses to “Audio of Wednesday’s CAAF arguments now up”

  1. dreadnaught says:

    Great line from Judge Baker in U.S. v. Wiechmann at 27:00,

    “Can I ask just a basic question so I can decide whether to continue listening or not?”

  2. Phil Cave says:

    I thought the CJ’s final point was the best. Why didn’t the SJA call someone and talk about it at the time and solve all of this wasted judicial time.

  3. Anonymous says:

    In Sanders didn’t the defense attorney seem to get stumped a lot? Especially for such a relatively simple issue…

  4. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for the insightful observation. Please post more often with such gems.

  5. Anonymous says:

    So defensive…the audio was posted, I took the time to listen to it and just offered my critique…nothing personal…Most lawyers have a thick skin or need to have one anyway.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Actually most lawyers have thin skin, especially those who have spent years on the Govt teet w/o much to show for it. And one more thing, the CAAF Mgmt and most of the contributors only have thick skin when pimping the Govt, never pimp the Defense.

  7. Anonymous says:

    If you want to post something useful, talk about substance. Your post just criticized an individual without offering any real insight. If you’re going to do that, post your name so we can go back and see all the flawless work you’ve done.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Boy, why is everyone so touchy on this topic? I just want to make one point about the post above: My extremely mild criticism was substantive.

    The only substantive thing lawyers do is write and talk. A lawyer’s performance in court is well within the bounds of legitimate criticism. That’s what lawyers are judged on. Surely, there is difference between Johnnie Cochran and that public defender in “My Cousin Vinny”.

    I mean really, your post was more of nonsubstantive Ad Hominem attack than mine ever was.

    That’s the beauty of posting anonmously, you have to attack the argument and not the person. If I got paid the big bucks for posting on this blog, I’d post under my own
    name. And when I appear in court I usually expect to be criticized by someone either the accused, supervisors, peers, judge. Usually all the above have something “stupid” to say. You can never please the peanut gallery, so take my comment for what it’s worth.

  9. Anonymous says:

    You are missing the point. Look at Phil’s comment about the CJ’s final point. That is substantive because it relates to the issue in the case. Your point was nothing more than an unsupported attack on an attorney, rather than a comment about the argument. It adds nothing to the discussion, and is just mean-spirited.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Since IAC can be an issue in every case I would think Anon’s post may have substance after all. (ALTHOUGH I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING ABOUT THE ATTY IN SANDERS BECAUSE I DID NOT LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENT) (just wanted to be clear).

    Not that I agree with the Anon’s post that posed the question about ADC being stumped, but I am offended at the last Anon who is the self-proclaimed arbiter of substance. Heck, as he/she got upset at those who take pot shots anonymously with using their name, and then did the same thing themselves, may I suggest “arbiter of substance” as their call sign.

  11. Anonymous says:

    IAC for getting stumped in oral argument. Great point.