Audio of NMCCA’s oral argument in United States v. Lee is now available here.

16 Responses to “Lee argument audio online”

  1. Anonymous says:

    With whom do I speak about withdrawing my application to become a NIMJ member?

  2. John O'Connor says:

    I believe Navarre is currently the NIMJ membership committee chair. They meet bi-weekly.

  3. Avid Reader says:

    That’s pretty funny; wasn’t there a discussion on here a while back about NIMJ not having members?

  4. Bridget says:

    Doubt that I am unique in this experience-but almost every call or visit I have with a potential military client involves a discussion about the individual’s lack of trust in the military counsel detailed. They all seem to have bought into the idea that the MDC are in the pocket of the command. Nothing I say will move them from that belief. Over time, they may start to trust the MDC, but the myth still thrives. It is a widely held misconception, and gets many service members into civilian counsel’s office. So, I guess I shouldn’t complain about the USMC’s bad practices.

  5. Anonymous says:

    Speaking of civilian counsel, this appellant doesn’t seem to have chosen wisely, based on the oral argument at least.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Unless, of course, not answering the judges’ questions or getting to the point was part of his strategy.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Anon 1712/1715,
    Sadly, this argument is par for the course for this particular counsel. I can hardly believe the detailed military appellate defense attorney sitting idly at counsel’s table would have done worse. But you can’t argue with results. The defense team has kept this case alive for quite some time.

  8. Anonymous says:

    More CAAFlog commenters doing what CAAFlog commenters do best, anonymous Monday morning quarterbacking and second guessing of the individuals in the courtroom standing up, making arguments, writing briefs, and/or trying cases. There really is nothing easier, and there are few things more cowardly.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Dead-on accurate though.

  10. Anonymous says:

    There are those who do. There are those who criticize those who do. And then there are the lazy bums that claim to be above it all.

    Go figure.

  11. Late Bloomer says:

    Funny…I always thought these things were won and lost with effective writing. The oral part is just for show. Kind of like driving vs. putting. For all we know, Lee’s counsel could have written a slam-dunk brief.

  12. Snuffy says:

    You forgot to add “those of us who have done it forever and now make a living off of pointing out the serious lack of talent and ability in some of those who still do it.” I dont wanna feel left out. BTW it is not second guesing most of the time- there is not that much guess work involved.

  13. Anonymous says:

    Late Bloomer: if you write a slam dunk brief then why ask for oral argument and make the court call your brief into question?

  14. Anonymous says:

    I did an argument against a well-known civilian ADC when I was at 46. I knew him before it based only on his writing abilities, which I thought were very good. But he was grossly underprepared at oral argument and even looked over and asked me if I had a copy of a case he wanted to use (during his argument). I gave him my copy of the case. The panel sort of looked stunned. He won on a few of the issues, but the conviction was upheld. But his argument made me question his over-all abilities. Some people are just better writing than in person and vice versa.

  15. Late Bloomer says:

    Late Bloomer: if you write a slam dunk brief then why ask for oral argument and make the court call your brief into question?

    Fair point. I guess that’s why firms retain “ringers” and hired guns.

  16. el cravat loco says:

    NMCCA occasionally orders oral argument without it being requested by counsel. CAAF holds oral argument on all granted cases, unless it’s a summary disposition or trailer case. So sometimes counsel have no choice.