Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9459269" data-attributes="member: 7023840">No, Lanasa (I don't bother fully capitalizing, because I had to type that name so many names) is represented by counsel.But there are several issues going on.First is that IIRC, his counsel is primarily a criminal defense attorney. That doesn't mean he doesn't understand and practice some civil matters, but criminal matters are very different than civil matters; especially for appeals- in criminal, you often will kitchen sink that appeal, but you don't in a civil matter. Second is that appeals are different that trial work; great trial attorneys don't necessarily make great appellate counsel, and vice versa.Third, while I go through the issues in detail, this is far from the worse brief I have read. To begin with, it is &quot;law-like substance.&quot; By that, I mean it passes the &quot;eye test.&quot; It was obviously written by someone who knows the law- not just a pro se litigant. Many of the errors of are subtle and wouldn't normally be seen unless you do appellate work.All that said, I teach trial team and moot court (appellate advocacy) to high school students. The first thing we learn in moot court is that you have to understand and argue the standard of review. There are only four (not true, but close enough to be true to get you through almost all cases you will encounter in federal appellate practice). I still can't fathom why he didn't provide and argue them. TLDR; it's a bad brief, but I have seen worse.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9459269, member: 7023840"] No, Lanasa (I don't bother fully capitalizing, because I had to type that name so many names) is represented by counsel. But there are several issues going on. First is that IIRC, his counsel is primarily a criminal defense attorney. That doesn't mean he doesn't understand and practice some civil matters, but criminal matters are very different than civil matters; especially for appeals- in criminal, you often will kitchen sink that appeal, but you don't in a civil matter. Second is that appeals are different that trial work; great trial attorneys don't necessarily make great appellate counsel, and vice versa. Third, while I go through the issues in detail, this is far from the worse brief I have read. To begin with, it is "law-like substance." By that, I mean it passes the "eye test." It was obviously written by someone who knows the law- not just a pro se litigant. Many of the errors of are subtle and wouldn't normally be seen unless you do appellate work. All that said, I teach trial team and moot court (appellate advocacy) to high school students. The first thing we learn in moot court is that you have to understand and argue the standard of review. There are only four (not true, but close enough to be true to get you through almost all cases you will encounter in federal appellate practice). I still can't fathom why he didn't provide and argue them. TLDR; it's a bad brief, but I have seen worse. [/QUOTE]

Verification