If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. -....,.--.--r~----- - ~ - ~- -~- --~~~-~. () rI' " " . 0t:- '"t'~ ::1 National Criminal Justice Reference Service ~ .. {I' ~Ii \j I L >;" , '" (I 0,,:. oF'. '. o o n '.I IJ' \i o· This microfiche was produced from documents received for inclusion in the NCJRS data base. Since NCJRS cannot exercise control over the physical condmon ofthe documents submitted, the individual frame quality will vary. The resolution chart on HI~s frame may be used to evaluate the document quality. ~~c .- , ,.1) '0'" f)~' ' - ,~ l~ . "', II o. , ~11I_2.5 (i. o \') ji ,.'\ o 11111.1 o· . '0 111111.25 111111.4 111111.6 o o . ocP MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART ,0 NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANOAROS-}963-A o i r, ~ D ,,\ J Microfilming procedures used to creqte this fiche comply with , the standards set forth in 41CFR 101-11.504. ~"J .' D ~. ,r. , 0 " j~f Points of view or Opir'lions stated in this document are ~i those of the author(s) and do not represent the official ';:r.. ,So ,., ~. .. C',';, . J position or policies of the U. Department of Justice. II ! 400N.CagitoIStr5let, N.W, / Wa.shVn9t~n, D.C.2()pot, G ). ': 0 () . '/ i'1; f'" National Instituteo of Justice United States Department of Justice " Washington, O.C. ,20;;31',.. , " o a f o '.~ \1 c: ~ 0 . " I o !' d a .. (d -----~ --- -----. '.. _-----=. ~ r .. """""._........ , ""'-"-' -'-"~"-- .......,. ".----..- '_._.-. "0- .... -.,--..... ----.......... - ..-- . ..... 5) ;\~ r 0 I I . i) I '" I \) j I I f) 1 I, 1 I ,~), .-~ [) \ Q l \ CONFERENCE ON \ UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT f AND FEDERAL APPELLATE ADVOCACY 1 G'=' J I" .' f I 1 i ~ 0 1 I .l i ,(J I FINAL REPORT <) I ) u.s. Department of Justice I Grant NUmber 83-NI-AX-0003 I 1 .::.-. ~ ~. ,"It The Acadertly for State. and Local Government lsa hot~for-profitJ tax-exempt' public foundation 'operated by the Council of State Governments, International City Management Association, Na­ tional J\ssociationof Counties, National Conference of State Legis­ latures, National Governors' Association, National League of. Cities,and U.S: Conference of Mayors; The Academy's purpose is to assist these seven o~?nizations of public officials in seeking so­ ACQUiSITIONS lutions to C?ritical prob~~ins in American states and communities prepared by 0". and the federal system ~ral. " o The Academy for State and Local Government 444 North Capitol Street, N.W., Suite 349 I Washington, D. C. 20001 ., (202) 638-1445 U.S. Department of Justice Natlonallnslilute of Justice This document has been reproduced exactly as received from the person or organization originating it. Points of view or opinions stat?d in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily o represent the official position or poliCies of the National Institute of Justice. Permission to reproduce this rap;:rtgb'gd material has been granted by Public Demain u.s. Department of Justice June 15, 1984 to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS). Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permis­ sion of the 00!!JiII!II'rt owner. 11 Q II " Q " . r <J TABLE OF CONTENTS /1 ,~ \ , PAGE 1. Introduction • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ';:.,• • • • • • • • eo. • • • • • • • 1 2. Purpose and Mi~sion •••••••••• ,0 ••••• ,. •••••••••• 0 •••••• G~ 2 3. Scope • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • e· • • 3 .. 4. Organizational Structure · .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 5. Planning and Review Committee. · . ., .. .. .. .. .. .. 6 6. Management Structure • • • • • • • .0. • • • • • • • • • • 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • 7 1. INTRODUCTION • Administrative · . · . ·. · . .. · . · . ·. · .. · .. .... 7 \\ · . ·. Financial . • •• e • . ·. · .... · .. ·. • ~? ·. · . .· .. ·. .... ·. 7 Fee •• 0 • . .. .. · .· .. .. · .· .. · . · . .. · . .· . • • · ... ·. 8 • Registration · .. .. · ... · . · ... · . · . • • ·. .... ·. .. ·. 8 \", Tapes • . .. • • ..... · ... • • . .. -. •• 8 Publications . · · .. • · .. · .· . · .. • 0 · . .. .. .. .... · ... 9 7. Panel Members • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 11 8. Conference #1 Georgetown University Law Center 1\ Was.hington, D. C • • •••••••••••••••••••••••••• 22 • Conference Attendees . .. · . · . .. .. .. .. .. .. 23 Survey Results • • • • • • • • • • • • 0 • • • • • • • • ~ • • • • • • • • • • _ • • • _ • 30. /l 9. Conference #2 - Pepperdine University Law School Malibu, California • • • • e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ • • • • a 38 (I Confe't"ence Attendees,) • • • • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • _ _ • • a _ _ • 39 • Survey Results • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • D • • • _ • 42 10. Summary .•• ~ ...•.. _ •• _ •..•.. , ......•.••..•.....•....••.. 51 J-t' 11. Appendix .. 0 ••• • ''>_ •• ___ .......... ~ ............ 0 ••••••••••• 53 iii l B (.::.\ )(".~ } r 17~ ,I' w '~ \0 t Iii l <:' /, 1. Introduction ,~, 1\'! \ This is the final repo~t on the Conference on "U.S. S~preme Court l t and Federal Appellate Advocacy," under grant #83-NI-AX-0003. 1 The two conferences were administered by the Aca~~my for State and \ 1 .. Local Government/State and Local Legal Center and co-sponsored by the i National Association of Attorneys General, the National Institute of 1 Municipal Law Officers * and the National District Attorneys Association. This report summarizes what pas been accomplished during the r grant period and documents the activities undertaken. It highlights 1 2. PURPOSE AND MISSION the key accomplishments and prob::J,.ems during 'this period. "In addition, this report reviews the essence, of the "Conference on U. S. Suprerr..e Court and Federal Appellate Advocacy" so that its success can be used for the future. o * The National Institute of Municipal Law Officers did not participate in co-sponsoring the second conference. o ~ f \\ .", , '~\. () ----- ---- -- -- . n. ,..•. - ~ ir 2. Purpose and Mission The purpos~ of the conferences on "U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Advocacy" was to educate stateVand local lawyers in tech- I niquesI, of presenting a case before the high Court and to improve the t quality of state and local advocacy. In addition, the objectives of I f \' the conferences were as fOllows: I • To bring together the finest ~ppellate advocates for state and local government attorneys; I J • To produce a three-hour videotape course that can 1/ be used for years to help prepare state and local rl II.' government lawyers for Supreme Court arguments; and, I 3. SCOPE • To broaden the audiences of the two conferences to include officials who could not afford to travel a great distance. I I' The mission of the conferences was to reach the widest audience of state and local attorneys and to provide ideas and information on making more effective oral and written presentations to the I U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, the conferences provided a unique opportunity to hear panel discussions concerning important principles for effective appellate advocacy. The conferences provided expert training in four major categories: .' Preparation for oral argument; • ,Presentation of an oral argument; • Presentation of~etitions and oppositions; and, • TeChniques of writing briefs ror parties and for amicus cllriae. 2 "'-'1 I i i 1 ! I j I ! j 3. Scope 'J I , I The conferences on "U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate \ Advocacy" provided the most effective learning seminar for state and I1 I ... local attorneys throughout the country, focusing on the techniques for ! J presenting cases before the U.S. Supreme Court. Presentations, panel 2 , discussions and a moot court argument were presented illustrating ! I1 techniques of argument. In addition, "highly qualified experts offered i I ! their advice in aiding state and local attorneys on techniques of: I I I • Presenting oral arguments before the court; I 4 • ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE • Writing briefs in high Court cases; and, J • Requesting the Court to grant and deny a hearing in a case. I ,I I 1 The first conference was h(~ld at Georgetown University Law i Center, Washington, DoC. on October 17-18, 1983, and the second con­ \ j ference was held at Pepperdine University Law School, Malibu, i California on March 5-6, 1984. I ~~: I I I 1 I I L ! .. \: r I t o ! '" f 11 III ! t 3 l Il I ~ LJ rII Tbe National Association or Attorneys General (NAAG) fosters ,:;::/ communication and cooperation among the states' chief legal officers 4. Organizational structure and thei~ 5,000 staff attorneys. The Attorneys General frequently The four co-sponsoring organizations were uniquely suited to make appear before the Supreme Court re~resenting the states. The ., the conferences a success because the combined members of these groups association has created a Supreme Court clearinghouse which informs guaranteed access to state and local government officials that could Attorneys General on Supreme Court developments affecting states, not have been achieved by anyone of the organizations individually. arranges moot court sessions for Attorneys General and their staffs The conferences could not have been successfully completed without the who have arguments before the Court and coordinates p.re~aration of assistance of the co-sponsoring groups. The co-sponsors were: briefs amicus curiae by the states. The Academy ror State and Local Government (ASLG) is a public The National District Attorneys A6~ociation (NDAA) represents policy center operated by seven national state, county and city the nation's district