Comments for CA3blog

Comment on New opinion — compelling a person to unencrypt his computer wasn’t plain error by Matthew Stiegler

Matthew Stiegler — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 23:36:18 +0000

In reply to Andrew Kinsey. Thank you! Fixed.

Comment on New opinion — compelling a person to unencrypt his computer wasn’t plain error by Andrew Kinsey

Andrew Kinsey — Tue, 21 Mar 2017 15:10:47 +0000

The link to professor Orin Kerr’s commentary is missing.

Comment on Bashman criticizes Third Circuit’s cautious video-posting policy, but I think their caution makes sense by PhilFan

PhilFan — Thu, 16 Mar 2017 13:59:28 +0000

Walk before you run. I agree that it would be nice to have more than 1 video a month, but I think its fair to give the judges some time to get used to the new procedure. The current system was likely a compromise, as I’m sure that there were at least a few judges that didn’t want any videos posted at all. I’m hopeful that as time passes more judges will get comfortable with the idea (and the procedure), and we will see more more videos made available.

Comment on How to make your briefs easier for judges to read by Matthew Stiegler

Matthew Stiegler — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:59:25 +0000

In reply to John.

Interesting.

I haven’t seen briefs filed with 2″ margins and agree that’d be too big for 14 pt type. But the last thing I filed had 1.5″ side margins (the top end of what I recommended) and I thought it worked well, and with my font the line length ends up right where Butterick recommends. But Garner’s recommendation is 1.2″ side margins, and your comment has me thinking about going back to that.

Thanks for weighing in.

Comment on How to make your briefs easier for judges to read by John

John — Thu, 23 Feb 2017 14:40:21 +0000

1 and 2 are so important. I immediately think less of a lawyer if the brief uses all caps or a courier font. It also makes my life harder. I also agree with 4 and 5, although that’s just preference. However, I disagree with 3. I hate it when I get a brief that has 2″ margins. It makes a lot of things more tedious for me than when I get a brief that has 1″ margins.

Comment on How to make your briefs easier for judges to read by Ben

Ben — Tue, 21 Feb 2017 17:31:33 +0000

In reply to PhilFan. One reason that it's hard to pick out an italicized case buried in a pile of text is that Times New Roman has a very weak italic style. (Butterick calls Times New Roman italic "mediocre" in Typography for Lawyers.) There are other, better fonts with italic styles that stand out more.

Comment on How to make your briefs easier for judges to read by Matthew Stiegler

Matthew Stiegler — Sat, 18 Feb 2017 02:16:49 +0000

In reply to PhilFan.

Thanks, Philfan.

I agree that underlining has its supporters, including some judges. The 10th Circuit judge I clerked for underlined cites, too. And I also agree that underlining jumps off the page more. But, besides the readability point I mentioned in my post, I think Bryan Garner isn’t alone in thinking that “Underlining bespeaks amateurishness.” (Winning Brief, 3d ed., p. 146.) I don’t imagine any judges or clerks would think less of a lawyer who chose italics, while the same may not be true of underlining, so there’s that, too.

Anyway. Appreciate your comment.

Comment on How to make your briefs easier for judges to read by PhilFan

PhilFan — Fri, 17 Feb 2017 19:41:33 +0000

Nice post.

I prefer underlining to italics for citations and emphasis – in my opinion, it makes it much easier to identify an underlined case in a big pile of text than an italicized case buried in that same pile. I recognize that this is the minority view, but I’m not the only one who prefers it. If I’m not mistaken, Judge Shwartz and Judge Rendell typically go the underline route.

Need another reason to avoid substantive footnotes? Waiver.

Also, here’s a 6th suggestion: More (and better) headings. Though, not in ALL CAPS, of course.

Comment on New opinion: Third Circuit sets limits on death-row solitary confinement by Matthew Stiegler

Matthew Stiegler — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:19:48 +0000

In reply to John. I read Wilson differently. It refers to "such an undeveloped state of the law" and "a split among the Federal Circuits," not "a single lower court judge disagree[ing]." And, even if Wilson did say that, it wouldn't support the assertion that your large pile of money depended on, that "it is impossible for a Court of Appeals to clearly establish federal law."

Comment on New opinion: Third Circuit sets limits on death-row solitary confinement by John

John — Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:06:03 +0000

Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 601, 618 (1999), says that if a single lower court judge disagrees with CA3’s reasoning then it can’t be clearly established law for purpose s of qualified immunity until SCOTUS rules on the issue.