Greedy Trial Lawyer
The Martha Stewart Rule Of Appellate Justice
Category: The Latest Baddest
Your Honors, I would like to sum up my argument in an additional 46,000 words. I cite the Justice for Martha Stewart Rule.
The Curious Case Of Skilling's Really Long Appellate Brief
When we received Mr. Skilling's 239-page appellate brief this morning, we raised our eyebrows at its length. Coming in at roughly 60,000 words, we wondered whether the court placed limitations on the length of briefs. Indeed, it does. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 32(a)(7)(B)(i): "A principal brief is acceptable if it contains no more than 14,000 words."So how did the lawyers for Skilling get away with their tome? They haven't. His lawyers, led by O'Melveny's Daniel Petrocelli submitted the brief to the court in draft form because it far exceeds the word limitation. In this 14-page motion in which Skilling's lawyers ask the court for permission to file a longer brief, they say the case is "extraordinary and compelling" enough to justify the additional length.
They also make some interesting points in arguing that size matters in this appeal. Among them: Because the DOJ has been permitted to file epic briefs in less voluminous and less complex criminal appeals, they should be allowed to here. Skilling's lawyers point out that in the Enron trial known as the "Nigerian Barge" case, the Fifth Circuit accepted a government brief filed at 69,730 words. And in the Martha Stewart case, they say, the Second Circuit accepted a brief at 56,078 words.
Posted by Peter Lattman at the Law Blog of The Wall Street Journal
Having spent an entire career living within what I considered to be overly restrictive time and word limits on voir dire, opening statements, closing arguments, appellate briefs and appellate arguments it is hard for me to accept that some litigants are permitted to write novels to express their points on appeal. I am certain there are people on death row whose attorneys had more to say but were required to shut their mouths by the rules. Obviously, Mr. Skilling feels his appeal deserves the Martha Stewart treatment. The question is, why was Martha allowed four times the appellate maximum to convince a panel of judges that her version of justice was correct? I know she bakes great cookies, but they always seemed normal-size to me.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.greedytriallawyer.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/708