Oregon Supreme Court

Yesterday, the Oregon Supreme Court came to our school to hear oral arguments for two cases. I sat in the first case, which dealt with the definition of cruelty and exploitation in an alleged priest sex abuse case. I’m not going to talk much about that issue because I think most are aware of this topic. Instead, I thought it was a great experience to see how attorneys argue in front of a State Supreme Court and the process.

From the minute an attorney begins to speak, judges begin to ask questions. Granted these are cases that have been appealed from the trial level, the factual and substantial case law have been exhausted. The purpose is more for the judges to clarify issues that the lower courts have disagreed on and to understand from their perspective, how this case should be ruled under current law.

Attorneys have to know their case inside and out, and you would think by the Supreme Court level they are well versed in both their argument and the opposition’s argument. Not so, as I discovered yesterday. The first attorney, arguing for the alleged victim, stumbled over the definition of cruelty and the distinction of when, for example, reprimand from a parent crosses the line into cruelty. Interestingly enough, the judges were no concerned with the public standard of what cruelty would entail. Instead, they focused on the statutory language and whether or not that fit within the Legislature’s intent to include this current case of allegations.
The second attorney, arguing for the Archdiocese, had an easier argument because the statute was on her side. She still, however, did not hit a homerun.

After the judges have heard the arguments they usually convene for a short period of time to discuss the case and might even come to preliminary conclusions. Later they discuss in more depth, the case and research (meaning law clerks research) more, if necessary. The Chief Justice selects who will write the opinion for each case and drafts are thrown about until each justice on the majority agrees with the written product.

The experience allowed me to reflect on what I might want out of my career. I have never thrown out the idea of becoming a judge, but I also want to be in private practice. Actually, as I write this, I am listening to a Washington Supreme Court member talk about the Role of State Courts in Protecting Liberty. He just said he was in private practice for 20 years, so it is not impossible to become a judge the non-traditional route. I’m not sure if I’d change in the bureaucracy of private practice life for that of public service life. Then again, I don’t have much, if any, experience in either.

Lay Down the Law.