Anonymous said on April 20, 2006  

Maybe you should suggest to the Court of Appeals that before a new justice is sworn in to the Ct. of Appeals, s/he should do a court appointed criminal case to see how it works in the real world.

Frank Feibelman

 Ken Lammers said on April 21, 2006  

Actually, I'd be thrilled if there was a requirement that someone had to serve at least 3 years as a defense attorney and 3 years as a prosecutor before they went on the appellate bench. I think it would give an appropriate sense of perspective. However, it's not going to happen.

 Tom said on April 21, 2006  

I felt much the same way after my first appellate argument. This quote from Robert Jackson, a former Solicitor General and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, may make you feel better (it did me):

"I used to say that as Solicitor General, I made three arguments in every
case. First came the one that I planned, as I thought - logical, coherent,
complete. Second was the one actually presented - interrupted, incoherent,
disjointed, disappointing. The third was the utterly devastating argument
that I thought of after going to bed that night."

 Steve said on April 22, 2006  

In a civil case, of course, you would have seen the order.

Why doesn't Rule 1:13 apply to orders in criminal cases? I have heard judges say that it does not.

That would have eliminated any ambiguity about your objections or the issue of waiver, if you had to endorse the order (with or without your objections) before it was entered.

Sometimes, in civil cases, the objections convince the judge not to sign the order.