Must Listen: Oral Arguments now Available in Millard v. Rankin
Oral argument in the case of Millard v. Rankin, the Colorado case where the registry was found to be cruel and unusual punishment, took place yesterday. The audio for the hearing can be found by clicking on the link below:
Millard-v.-Rankin oral argument
The case documents can be found below and were and hosted compiled courtesy of the Mitchell Hamline School of Law:
- Colorado District Court Opinion | view via Google Scholar
- Defendant-Appellant Merits Brief
- Appellees’ Merits Brief
- Defendant-Appellant’s Reply Brief
- Attorneys General Amicus Brief
- Scholars’ Amicus Brief
- NARSOL Amicus
- Fourth Amended Complaint
- Defendant’s Trial Brief
- Plaintiffs’ Trial Brief
- Plaintiffs’ Rebuttal Closing Argument Brief
Discover more from Florida Action Committee (FAC)
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
After listening to the arguments, I couldn’t but notice that when the female judge asked the plaintiff’s attorney about evidence concerning what I interpreted as reoffense rates of those convicted of sex offenses, he briefly pointed to the seventeen scholars amici briefs instead of telling her what he should have been well prepared for, that the reoffense rate of those all across the nation, including Colorado, are very, very low — period.
I got the impression that she didn’t hear from him what she expected him to say. Maybe I got that wrong, but damn, what’s wrong with these attorney’s not wanting to stand up in court and state the obvious — seems like there’s WAY too much deference to the panel of jurists.
Yea he could of told her what she wanted to hear and just kept it short and then refer to the briefs for more lengthy details. I got the impression that he was a bit unprepared with amateurish oratory skills. We’ll have to see what happens. I wonder how long it takes for the court to make a decision ? If anyone knows more or less.
I would hope that the briefs in support somewhere point to studies showing that registries have no appreciable deterrent effect. One judge asked about this and it could have easily been shown by pointing to studies. Counsel for Mr. Millard seemed hesitant or unprepared to show this
I don’t think the attorney for the appellate did pretty good. He sounded like a nervous rookie out of law school. It was pretty brutal to my ears. I think if the judges reverse judge Matsche’s ruling, it’ll be under the premise of ” public safety “.
Anyhow, the plantiffs or appellee can request to the supreme court at that point and they may very well take the case – hopefully. but Jesus! I just hope they don’t use the same attorney to argue. Get the female attorney from the Gundy case, SCOTUS seems to like her and she argues well.
Yeah, I gotta agree with you. It was kinda hard to listen to him but also the court’s recording was average quality. My personal favorite is Katherin Szudy in Ohio vs. Williams and once you’ve heard the best, it’s hard to go back. I try to remind myself, however, that these are specialty/appellate type lawyers and not trial lawyers. With these cases it’s about writing excellent briefs and making good arguments not to mention just being grateful the guy is running with the case all the way! And those judges see past that kinda stuff. They got it. I think we won this. I put that out there to the universe anyway….
i just listened to it again…. ok, he sucks. could he have suggested at least ONE other punishing effect besides going in 4 times a year?! Damn! not feeling so positive….. just have to wait and see.
I remember that case in Ohio. Yes, the attorney was really good. Eloquent and articulate. You are right that once you hear the best, it is hard to go back and anything else would seem sub-par. Writing excellent briefs is an important factor, but I’d have to agree with FAC above when they said ” This is exactly the danger of coming into court unprepared or out of your league. You run the risk of creating bad precedent. ” You have to make sure you get the right lawyer for your case. In another post, I mentioned that it took me 1 year to look for the right lawyer to win my termination of probation case. She was more than prepared – in so much, that at some point I even felt bad for the prosecutor because she was unprepared – I won my motion and the prosecution lost. This was an important case, every moment has to be planned perfectly and prepared.
Hoping that THIS turns out to be the answer!
After listening to the oral arguement, I am hopefu. At least the male judge who spoke last “got it”. All we need is one more judge on the panel to agree and we have another circuit court win.
Wow! maybe it’s me, but that attorney for the plantiffs did horrible. I couldn’t even understand his argument as he was rambling everywhere trying to find his words for his argument. Even the judges at some point were like, that didn’t answer my question. ay ya yai! lol. I hate to say it, but that prosecutor or attorney general presented a more clear and convincing argument than the plaintiffs attorney.
I agree. The first 10 minutes I was rolling my eyes because its the same argument prosecutors present, and then the next 15 minutes I just had to put my head down when he was rambling. Hopefully the filed briefs can give us a boosted help. But as someone else mentioned, a reversal can have us request it to SCOTUS and hopefully they accept to hear it.
Debbie
I agree with you 100% . Not only did he ramble , he did almost no research to get facts to back up his argument of which there are tons of cases but he couldn’t quote one. This is our biggest problem poorly paid and qualified attorneys to argue our cases. He could have argued to have the laws struck down for all offenders had he had his facts in order but he was so ill prepared he was content to just apply it to this single case. We need to make up a web sight with nothing but case arguments and facts that prove our points ,that can be easily accessible to attorneys that when we hear about there pending trials ,they can be referred to it . Do the foot work for them, so they can correctly handle these cases .
How funny, I was just about to find and grab the link on here to listen to the oral arguments. lol.
Thanks for the link FAC.