Oral argument about traffic stop before the US Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit where the lawyer wants judges to distinguish Supreme Court precedent.
The assistant US attorney was absolutely brilliant though. "Q: I assume you don't want us to overrule the Supreme Court? A: I don't. Q: Well that's good. A: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time." Has to be the easiest oral argument he'll ever see.
Appellant counsel presented to my criminal procedure class during law school at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. At the time, 1999, he was at the top of his game, very successful criminal defense attorney, good looking guy, attractive wife, and seemed to have it all. Addiction ruined his career and his life. This argument is when he was a mess.
He was arrested shortly after this case for cocaine possession - allegedly $10,000 worth. So drug addiction may explain some of what can be heard in the clip. I won't post his name here, but it's easy to figure out via Westlaw or Lexis, if you want to read up on him. It's a pretty sad story.
Judging from the attorney's subsequent disciplinary record, he was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of argument and was ultimately covitced of purchasing $10,000 of cocaine for personal use (legitimately for personal use). We don't have video, but the court handled it remarkably well and Mr. Brookman has a good war story.
I apologize, the case is a 7th Circuit case, USA v. Robert Lee Johnson (04-2732). You may use the case number to search for the MP3 of the oral arguments ont he 7th Circuit's website.
hahaha! try telling the judge, "you distinguish it." These judges were actually calm considering counsel. This guy much have gone out and gotten shit faced after this.
This guy did a fine job for his client and then was faced by a changed playing field by the time it was heard on appeal. He should have found anything he could have to distinguished it.
The case was United States v. Johnson, 123 Fed. Appx. 240 (7th Cir. Ind. 2005). The court could not distinguish the case from Illinois v. Caballes (holding that dogs sniffing the outside of a car was not an invasion of privacy). SCOTUS denied a writ of certiorari on Oct. 5, 2005. D was found with 500 grams of cocaine in his car.
Not that anyone might care, as indicated below it's a 7th Circuit case. You can find the original recording on the court's website -- case number 04-2732
I'm in no way versed in law but after hearing this argument, it makes me even wonder, what the heck did he do to even prepare for this case? It sounds like he has the temperment of a 2 year old.
Oh snap "call the Coroner." LOL. He tried to put out a Forest fire with a squirt gun with no refills. LOL LOL. One question and a "thank you Your Honor." He will perhaps never have another win like that. Ever.
I looked it up on West too and found some other interesting stuff through google -he's a graduate of Cincy law school and was a member of Scacchetti & Scacchetti (with wife Marcia) who apparently left the firm to become the general manager of a country club. According to the following link, he resorted to cocaine use due to "painful open sores over his entire body." I kid you not - rough stuff.... supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-2713.pdf -
If I ever found myself in the position where I was trying to get a case to the supreme court so that I could argue for them to ignore my client's 500 grams of cocaine because he had a privacy right not to have dogs sniff the outside of his car, then I'd probably wind up drinking a lot also.
Turns out this attorney was on to something: in its 2015 Rodriguez decision, the Supreme Court departed from Caballes (without overruling it) and held that officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop.
The assistant US attorney was absolutely brilliant though.
"Q: I assume you don't want us to overrule the Supreme Court?
A: I don't.
Q: Well that's good.
A: Thank you very much. I appreciate your time."
Has to be the easiest oral argument he'll ever see.
In his life. He'll probably get drunk one night and pull this up just to boast and talk crazy about the opposing counsel.
Appellant counsel presented to my criminal procedure class during law school at the University of Cincinnati College of Law. At the time, 1999, he was at the top of his game, very successful criminal defense attorney, good looking guy, attractive wife, and seemed to have it all. Addiction ruined his career and his life. This argument is when he was a mess.
Any way to distinguish it? Well I hope you can find one. BWHAHAHAHA! Actually laughing out loud.
Counsel: "Based on the dog."
Judge: "Based on the Supreme Court!"
Priceless.
He was arrested shortly after this case for cocaine possession - allegedly $10,000 worth. So drug addiction may explain some of what can be heard in the clip. I won't post his name here, but it's easy to figure out via Westlaw or Lexis, if you want to read up on him. It's a pretty sad story.
LOL! I feel a lot better about my 1L moot court arguments now :)
Same! lol
Good thing he reserved time for rebuttle. This is priceless.
Judging from the attorney's subsequent disciplinary record, he was under the influence of alcohol and/or drugs at the time of argument and was ultimately covitced of purchasing $10,000 of cocaine for personal use (legitimately for personal use). We don't have video, but the court handled it remarkably well and Mr. Brookman has a good war story.
I apologize, the case is a 7th Circuit case, USA v. Robert Lee Johnson (04-2732). You may use the case number to search for the MP3 of the oral arguments ont he 7th Circuit's website.
hahaha! try telling the judge, "you distinguish it." These judges were actually calm considering counsel.
This guy much have gone out and gotten shit faced after this.
I wonder if the opposing counsel could sue this guy for the rotator cuff surgery they had to get from all the high-fiving they did during his argument
i'd think this was funny if it was't so sad. This guy did a woeful job for his client.
This guy did a fine job for his client and then was faced by a changed playing field by the time it was heard on appeal. He should have found anything he could have to distinguished it.
The case was United States v. Johnson, 123 Fed. Appx. 240 (7th Cir. Ind. 2005). The court could not distinguish the case from Illinois v. Caballes (holding that dogs sniffing the outside of a car was not an invasion of privacy). SCOTUS denied a writ of certiorari on Oct. 5, 2005.
D was found with 500 grams of cocaine in his car.
Not that anyone might care, as indicated below it's a 7th Circuit case. You can find the original recording on the court's website -- case number 04-2732
I got very nervous there for a moment that the AUSA was going to speak! It was obvious the judges wanted to move on with their docket.
They did have to cut him off though.
Hey, they didn't give appellant counsel his reply time! That's when he was going to break the case wide open!
Our App Ad prof had us listen to this... thank you so much for posting it on youtube so I could "keep" a copy :)
That "guy" is well-known Judge Easterbrook. Show some effing respect!
It sounds worse that it was. Guy had his whole argument prepped and then the Supreme Court gutted it. Nothing he could have done here.
I'm in no way versed in law but after hearing this argument, it makes me even wonder, what the heck did he do to even prepare for this case? It sounds like he has the temperment of a 2 year old.
Oh snap "call the Coroner." LOL. He tried to put out a Forest fire with a squirt gun with no refills. LOL LOL. One question and a "thank you Your Honor." He will perhaps never have another win like that. Ever.
What does he say at the end after being chided for not returning to counsel's table? "I'm sorry, I was walking back in frustration"?
@SecretStasher I think he went out and got shit faced BEFORE this.
wow. im laughing right now. wow...if he was my lawyer id sue for malpractice.
I'm cringing all over in secondhand embarrassment.
I looked it up on West too and found some other interesting stuff through google -he's a graduate of Cincy law school and was a member of Scacchetti & Scacchetti (with wife Marcia) who apparently left the firm to become the general manager of a country club. According to the following link, he resorted to cocaine use due to "painful open sores over his entire body." I kid you not - rough stuff.... supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2007/2007-Ohio-2713.pdf -
Hope is not a strategy....
You think that you would take the time to have a hunting accident staged before going through with something like this.
He was disbarred, though not for this.
Bauer and Sykes.
Your picture is the ninth circuit?
Looks like Seventh and Mission to me.
Besides Chief Judge Easterbrook, who are the Judges on this panel? I didn't recognize the other two Judges' voices .
Diana Wood was the lady
Or beforehand.
Haha start out contending that you have no argument?
LoL. Somebody earlier asked the question who won....
Benny Stulwicz from LA Law could have done a better job.
Who was that knucklehead?
Who won?
If I ever found myself in the position where I was trying to get a case to the supreme court so that I could argue for them to ignore my client's 500 grams of cocaine because he had a privacy right not to have dogs sniff the outside of his car, then I'd probably wind up drinking a lot also.
@RentMyCar Or like Sweets from Bones.
Turns out this attorney was on to something: in its 2015 Rodriguez decision, the Supreme Court departed from Caballes (without overruling it) and held that officers may not extend the length of a traffic stop to conduct a dog sniff unrelated to the original purpose of the stop.
Right, but in Caballes the dog sniff was outside the car while the traffic ticket was still being written. Not really a departure.
LOL holy shit