My colleague James Muir linked to the Globe and Mail story about Conrad Black's perceptions on his appellate hearing. To see why Lord Black may have had his perceptions, you can hear the audio of the oral hearing here (HT Bashman). Unfortunately, the American appellate courts do not give public access to the briefs anymore persuant to a new rule that was passed last year - so I can't link to them. It is hard to say what the hearings mean - superficially (and this is what Black seemed to pick up on), the Judges were not buying the appellant's arguments one bit. The judges, Posner, Sykes, and Kanne, are all three Republican appointees. My impression of the judges' questions is that they held the lawyers to the high standard of review on appeal: i.e. error of law or blatant error in the finding of facts. There were persistent questions on whether the lawyers had objected below at the right time. The legal issue of "deprivation of honest services" that Black noticed the judges did not understand is one that has become so muddled in American law, that I didn't expect the Seventh Circuit to use this case to clarify it.
That being said, sometimes the judges play devil's advocate and so they may have been hiding their hand.
One thing I did notice is that the lawyers had not worked out a proper theory of the case. This may be because the facts are so complicated; but when Judge Posner started posing hypotehticals, sometimes the lawyers were not able to give a statisfactory answer. There were many questions about proposed jury instructions, but again when the lawyers were pressed about the correctness of their proposed instructions, the lawyers did not have a good response. In fairness, however, when you have four co-defendants with four teams of lawyers, it is very hard to have a coordinated legal strategy that is internally consistent. Again, had I been able to access the briefs, I may have a different view on this.
I would invite Canadian lawyers who are familiar with appellate practice to listen to the audio and submit their views on how Canadian courts would treat the similar procedural questions on appeal.
Update: I hope the link is working now.
Recent Comments