If the appellate bench was 90% McGeorge and Loyola former shitlawyers turned trial judges who were elevated to the appellate court, it'd have a lot less pomp. You have some of those types of judges who are just dumb hacks and you have some of them who think they're prestigious, and there's a big difference.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48531862)

One date rape case was a HS on/off BF/GF, and she claimed rape after he came inside her - allegedly against her will - and she was afraid she was pregnant so she made up this rape fraud.

Beyond date rape, no, I don't think I've had a case of where I believe there's actual innocence. Overcharging, yes. But dindu nuffin, no.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48527907)

what percentage of criminal appeals raise an argument about jury instructions?

what percentage of criminal appeals result in a new trial or dismissal of charges?

tyia for your service.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48527751)

Jury instructions -- I often raise jury instruction issues, because they're clean legal issues that don't involve the facts. Either the judge botched it or he didn't. The problem with jury instruction arguments is prejudice; the appellate court will almost always find some way to chalk it up to harmless error. I probably raise instructional issues in 20% of cases, and I think instructional issues are bread and butter that most seasoned appellate lawyers look closely at and try to raise because they're at least good issues on the merits even if prejudice is hard.

New trial or dismissal -- If you're talking an outright new trial or dismissal on everything, maybe 1-2% but that's just a guess. More frequent particular counts getting throw out but the guy still ending up with a ton of time so the dismissal of a particular count makes no practical difference.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48527927)

That being said, I don't think the appellate judges would give a flying fuck about who trial counsel was.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48527941)

I"m certain you've got Appellate Chads in your state.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48529277)

There's obviously appellate specialists at biglaw firms and prestigious boutiques who the court will respect, but there's no fucking way they have any respect for some trial lawyer who is doing his own appeal.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48529375)

OUT the missed objection

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48527913)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48527966)

"haha, state can get in illegal evidence / testimony all it wants, unless you SAY something!"

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48528123)

I'm dealing mostly with top-tier crimes (rapes and murders) and most PDs doing those cares are decent and aren't doing stuff do blatantly bad at trial that gives way for an obvious IAC case. They fuck up sentencing a lot because they're not that bright even if they're trying and don't know all the technical rules.

For IAC on a trial issue, it's just not going to work almost ever. Everything at trial is a judgment / strategy call. Also, unless the record reveals why trial counsel acted as he did, he's not IAC unless there's no conceivable reasonable tactical reason for what he did. Plus, there's prejudice - IAC requires a reasonable probability of a different outcome. It's really hard to say any thing that happened at trial made the difference between a guilty verdict and not.

I've been much more successful raising IAC in sentencing issues. The sentencing rules are in many circumstances black and white, and if they miss something, it's much easier to say there's no conceivable reasonable tactical reason he botched it. Also, prejudice is obvious from many sentencing issues. Forgot to object to some enhancement that was obviously invalid? There's an obvious direct correlation between that lack of objection and the sentence.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530872)

I can see how it's more formulaic to successfully raise IAC in sentencing issues. It's probably the same thing for certain evidentiary issues, too. Golden rule violations immediately come to mind.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530892)

These prox scum often make inappropriate pleas for victim sympathy, and i've had various situations where they dilute the BRD standard which is a huge no-no.

But the cowardly judges will almost never actually say the prox scum committed misconduct. They'll just go straight to harmless error analysis without even reaching the merits. It's really sad and sick.

These prox scum also misstate the law all the time, and the courts always say that's harmless because "the trial court correctly instructed the jury on the the law and correctly instructed the jury that the attorney's arguments are not evidence or the law and to follow the court's instructions if anything the attorneys say conflicts with the court's instructions."

The entire system is lulzy based on the fiction that the juries actually follow these instructions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48531201)

still, 115 in 2016 = 150 (from Dec 2016) - 153 (Jan 2016) at Nov 2024 if it kept up with inflation.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48531720)

Yes, we're screwed because of inflation. To be fair, the vast majority of white collar jobs haven't kept up with Bidenflation, so I'm not sure we're that far behind some gov lawyer or in-house counsel in that respect.

The problem is there's not an annual rate increase. THere are increases every few years, and it has to be done through the Legislature's budget. Rates went from 95/105/115 to 110/115/130 in July 2023.

The new budget is done every July, and they *say* they've asked for 30% increases but who knows what the Legislature will actually do.

It sucks that the rates are at mercy of the state legislature rather than some local chief judge who won't give a fuck and can just throw us a bone.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48531839)

Would love to do this.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48529756)

I really don't know if they care about the fact that I was in the "club" and it helped. Perhaps it did and they're willing to take a chance on people with not much criminal experience based on aptitude. But there are plenty of people on the panels who went to the USDs and Loyolas and the McGeorges, so they aren't prestige snobs and there probably aren't enough top school types they can take.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530875)

The issue is that the boomer lifers are all retiring or working much less, and the panel is desperate for bodies. They could very well be taking on a bunch of retards at this point, but I dunno.

Were you an elbow intern clerk to one of the COA judges, or did you generally work for the court? I have very little insight on how shit works at the COA.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48531823)

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48532440)

Does it ever come back to fuck the lawyer career-wise?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530263)

I think most of them know that nothing's ever going to come of it and are willing to help. If there's an OPINION resulting in a finding of IAC, then it's automatically reported to the bar. But I doubt the bar actually does anything for an honest mistake in failing to make some objection, rather than some shit like a lawyer coming into court drunk every day.

If there's no COA OPINION finding IAC, it's never coming back to them. And most IAC issues lose because either the merits (the court will say it isn't ineffective assistance) or lack of prejudice. And even if there's a good IAC issue, the COA will often try to resolve the case some other way to spare the defbro.

I don't actually know what happens if the opinion is reported to the bar, but I can't imagine any lawyer has had some bad consequences.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530881)

Well done, criminal appellate work is actually one of the few remaining areas of law where there are some scholarly sweets. You are constantly practicing constitutional law, LOL at 'attorneys' who just know how to whine about the same handful of administrative statutes to a handful of braindead state bench officers.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530551)

For a direct appeal from a criminal conviction, both the trial itself and sentencing are part of the same appeal. Most of my work is direct appeals. There are plenty of sentencing-only appeals that I also handle (e.g., resentencing after the sentence was vacated in a previous appeal).

There's not much most-conviction relief; the COA would have to appoint counsel for a pro per defendant who files a decent enough habeas petition that they think it's worth getting counsel for, as they don't have a right to counsel for whatever bullshit habeas they filed for the 20th time.

You're right - sentencing is where I can actually get shit done for a client. That's where the mistakes are made - it's amazing how the judge, DA, PD and probation officer can all be idiots and make or acquiesce in the same sentencing error. It definitely makes it rewarding to write a brief where I know there's there's some chance of a decent result.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530890)

you should absolutely meet a buddy of mine

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48530900)

any chance i can just drop all this bullshit and just do criminal appeals for 200k/year? i could afford to because my wife and i have enough socked away for retirement and i've pretty much funded college. might be chill to do something different, and i've always been told my writing is strong.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48531842)

There's also a big learning curve with all sorts of stuff other than the actual substantive law, and you'll waste tons of unbillable time in the first few years.

I actually think the huge startup cost to get into this scares people away.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5660290&forum_id=2:#48531869)