Ten Lessons Learned From the Supreme Court
In a time when so many Supreme Court decisions favor the Government, Stanford Law Professor Jeffrey Fisher remains convinced that there are victories to be won and that good lawyering can still make a difference. Mr. Fisher is, himself, proof of his conviction, having regularly come away with victories from the Court.
In this month’s video presentation, Mr. Fisher talks about what he thinks makes for good lawyering. Some of what he says applies directly to Supreme Court practice, but much of his presentation carries over to appellate work in general and to making compelling arguments in the trial court.
It would be hard to find someone who is better qualified to discuss a successful approach to arguing criminal cases. Mr. Fisher. This term before the Supreme Court, Mr. Fisher argued the Confrontation Clause case of Bullcominng v. New Mexico, and the speedy trial case of United States v. Tinklenberg, 131 S. Ct. 2007 (2011). Since 2003, he has argued 20 cases in the Supreme Court. Among them: United States v. O’Brien, 130 S. Ct. 2169 (2010), where the Court held proof that the firearm was a machine gun was a necessary element of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(B)(ii); Melendez-Diaz v. Masssachusetts, 129 S. Ct.2527 (2008), where the Court found the introduction of certificates signed by state lab analysts violated the Confrontation Clause; Kennedy v. Louisiana, 128 S. Ct. 2641 (2008), upholding the ban on capital punishment for child rape; Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 128 S. Ct. 2605 (2008), the case involving the punitive damage claim in the Exon Valdez oil spill; Blakely v. Washington, 542 U.S. 296 (2004) and, of course, Crawford v. Washington. 541 U.S. 36 (2004).