Opinion spoilers

22 June 2009 • Ricardo J. Bascuas • 1 Comment » • Tags: None

One of the ways to get law students to read cases more closely and more critically is to ask them to find the first sentence in each opinion where they are certain which way the court is going to go. Justice Stevens, for example, gave away Yeager v. United States in the first two sentences:

In Dunn v. United States, 284 U. S. 390, 393 (1932), the Court, speaking through Justice Holmes, held that a logical inconsistency between a guilty verdict and a verdict
of acquittal does not impugn the validity of either verdict. The question presented in this case is whether an apparent inconsistency between a jury’s verdict of acquittal on some counts and its failure to return a verdict on other counts affects the preclusive force of the acquittals under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

If you ipse dixit Holmes right from the get-go, there’s no need to bother with the next sentence—“We hold that it does not.”

The faster you can name-that-tune a case, the more in tune—that was inadvertent, really—you are with how the opinion hangs together and with how persuasive or logical it is. Civil cases are often more opaque but not always. Sometimes they start out crystal clear, like this one that the Eleventh handed down a few days ago:

The issue in this appeal is whether the district court erred when it granted a surety’s motion for new trial after the jury found the surety settled a claim in bad faith.

Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Southeast Floating Docks, Inc., (11th Cir. June 16, 2009). A jury already decided that you’re bad. Why should we need to ask another jury? You’re bad. Case closed.

Some criminal cases can keep you guessing. But when the opinion begins with a pithy summary of the crime of conviction without any reference to any legal issue, the writing is on the wall for the defendant-appellant. Some recent ones where the court basically rules in one sentence:

Defendant-Appellant Donatos Sarras appeals his convictions and sentences for persuading his minor step-daughter to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing photos of such conduct and for knowingly possessing child pornography.

U.S. v. Sarras (11th Cir. June 16, 2009). I think I know how that one ends.

The main question presented by this appeal involves the reasonableness of the sentence of a young adult who was arrested in a sting operation that involved the armed robbery of a fictional stash house of cocaine and who later threatened a witness who testified against him.

U.S. v. Docampo (11th Cir. June 15, 2009). I was almost thrown off by “young” and “fictional”. Almost.

The main question presented by this appeal is whether a person who alters records that have been subpoenaed by a grand jury obstructs an investigation of Medicare fraud.

U.S. v. Hoffman-Vaile (11th Cir. May 27, 2009). Well, that seems almost tautological when you put it that way.

At the time of his arrest in 2004, Defendant-Appellant Gregory C. Kapordelis was an anesthesiologist who practiced medicine and had a home in Gainesville, Georgia. His sexual exploits with underage boys, however, took him far from Gainesville, across state lines and around the world.

U.S. v. Kapordelis (11th Cir. June 1, 2009). Technically, two sentences, but the stuff about him being an anesthesiologist was really just gilding the lilly.

---