Latest Argument Before the Second Court of Appeals

I argued an interesting case on Tuesday before the Court of Appeals for the Second Judicial District of Texas in Fort Worth.  It's posted here for your listening pleasure.  It was a driving while intoxicated case with issues regarding the sufficient of the evidence, the trial court's ruling on a motion to suppress evidence, and defining the term "operate" in the jury charge.

Arguing at the Court of Appeals is very different than trial work.  The Court of Appeals is much more formal and structured.  There is not a jury.  Argument takes place in a courtroom behind a podium and in front of three justices.  If you are the appellant, as I was in this case, then by local rule, you have 15 minutes to argue.  There are small green, yellow, and red lights to warn you when you have used up certain amounts of time and when you have to stop speaking (even mid-sentence you have to stop if the red light comes on).  Then, the appellee, the state of Texas in this case, gets 15 minutes to argue.  Finally, the appellant (me) gets 5 minutes for rebuttal argument.  The justices can (and do) interrupt at any time to ask questions about case law, the record, anything really.  One of the most frustrating things for me is that you don't get a ruling right away.  It takes several months for the court of appeals to write and issue an opinion on a case.  

Arguing before the court of appeals is unlike anything I've done.  You have to be on your toes at all times, and it is imperative that you know the pertinent case law and record inside and out.  I believe being an appellate lawyer makes me a better trial lawyer.  I know exactly what to do and how to preserve the record at trial, and I believe being a good appellate lawyer gives me credibility with the trial court judges when I am arguing the law.

Happy listening, and I will be sure to post when the opinion comes out - fingers crossed!