If anyone wants to watch the oral arguments to see what's there firsthand, the video archive is accessed from the following page:
https://courts.arkansas.gov/courts/supreme-court/oral-argument-videos/sc
From there, click on "Oral Argument" under CR-16-413, Arron Michael Lewis v. State of Arkansas, from Pulaski County Circuit Court which will give you a pop up that immediately opens to the archived video. It begins with a few case announcements and then goes straight to the argument, with the attorney for Lewis speaking first.
If you've never watched oral arguments before, here are a few tips for better understanding:
1 The oral argument is like the tip of the iceberg on an appeal.
2 The real crux of the decision will lie in points in the parties' case arguments (called "briefs") that may or may not be referenced in orals.
3 In orals, the briefs are already part of the equation. They don't have to be read or referenced and they still count just as much. They are the foundation and explanation of what you want the court to know, to rule, and why.
4 So in orals, each side will bring up certain points that it might want to emphasize, clarify, or elaborate on further from its briefs. And the judges can ask questions on what is said, or even on what is not said in orals but was in the brief from one side or the other.
5 You can't always tell what a judge is thinking from their questions, if it's a quick simple one. But when the judge strays into a lecture, like the gray-haired one did (as I mentioned earlier), then you get a better feel.
6 The overall tone of the orals really tells you nothing, because the final decision will be based on the opinion of 7 different judges, not on who seemed to be the best at arguing and answering in orals. And some judges say nothing.
7 Even with the ones who talk, sometimes the question will give the exact opposite impression than what the judge is thinking. For example, say you hear a judge ask ask the state "Arkansas has often extended rights, and the defense is arguing we do so here. Why shouldn't we just go ahead and do that?" On its face, it looks like the judge is trying to push against the state and in favor of the defense's argument. But the judge may be asking such a question either (a) to give the speaker a chance to persuade other judges of something they are already accepting from that speaker, or (b) to give help to the fashioning of how to best word the ruling in the final decision that will be used as precedent thenceforth (iow, the idea that "I'm going to be addressing this question later, so please tell me how you think the best way to answer it would be")
8 Anyone who claims they know who "won" the orals is fairly clueless, because questions and reactions have no meaning here apart from the bigger picture as noted above.
9 But from the orals, you can get a taste of the stances by each side.
My personal observation is that I didn't hear anything from the orals that surprised me or changed my previous summary and analysis.
* In the appeal, the defense is arguing for additional evidence to be excluded in this case. Part of their argument is that when LE makes an error, the state should change its laws and penalize LE to a greater degree than the US Supreme Court says is required, even though that has not been the law before (and the SC ruling that is being referenced was decided all the way back in 2004, so this really isn't new). The other part is that the state abused its subpoena powers (a subpoena is issued by a prosecutor) to get access to info for an investigation, when a warrant (issued by a judge) was required by law.
* In reply, the state says the current law is fine, and that rights of defendants have to be balanced with those of victims in deciding to discard proof of a crime. And regarding the evidence that the defense says needed a warrant and should be excluded because there wasn't one, the state replies that type of evidence NEVER needs a warrant. Their additional argument is that even if you tossed out some extra evidence in regards to Lewis case itself, the remaining evidence was so overwhelming that Lewis would still have been easily convicted.
* My personal opinion from both briefs and orals is that the state is more likely than not to prevail on the above, and that to the extent they lose on some of it, it's not likely to be seen as enough difference to lead to a new trial. But I don't know these judges and their tendencies, so who knows.
* In the cross-appeal, the state is arguing that some evidence was erroneously excluded, while the defense disagrees. Overlaying that is the issue of timeliness. My reading is that the issue needs clarification as to what the law says, regardless of timeliness, because of future cases in the system being impacted, and I think the state clearly has it right. So imo either the state wins outright (if timely) or they win with an asterisk (if not).
https://courts.arkansas.gov/courts/supreme-court/oral-argument-videos/sc
From there, click on "Oral Argument" under CR-16-413, Arron Michael Lewis v. State of Arkansas, from Pulaski County Circuit Court which will give you a pop up that immediately opens to the archived video. It begins with a few case announcements and then goes straight to the argument, with the attorney for Lewis speaking first.
If you've never watched oral arguments before, here are a few tips for better understanding:
1 The oral argument is like the tip of the iceberg on an appeal.
2 The real crux of the decision will lie in points in the parties' case arguments (called "briefs") that may or may not be referenced in orals.
3 In orals, the briefs are already part of the equation. They don't have to be read or referenced and they still count just as much. They are the foundation and explanation of what you want the court to know, to rule, and why.
4 So in orals, each side will bring up certain points that it might want to emphasize, clarify, or elaborate on further from its briefs. And the judges can ask questions on what is said, or even on what is not said in orals but was in the brief from one side or the other.
5 You can't always tell what a judge is thinking from their questions, if it's a quick simple one. But when the judge strays into a lecture, like the gray-haired one did (as I mentioned earlier), then you get a better feel.
6 The overall tone of the orals really tells you nothing, because the final decision will be based on the opinion of 7 different judges, not on who seemed to be the best at arguing and answering in orals. And some judges say nothing.
7 Even with the ones who talk, sometimes the question will give the exact opposite impression than what the judge is thinking. For example, say you hear a judge ask ask the state "Arkansas has often extended rights, and the defense is arguing we do so here. Why shouldn't we just go ahead and do that?" On its face, it looks like the judge is trying to push against the state and in favor of the defense's argument. But the judge may be asking such a question either (a) to give the speaker a chance to persuade other judges of something they are already accepting from that speaker, or (b) to give help to the fashioning of how to best word the ruling in the final decision that will be used as precedent thenceforth (iow, the idea that "I'm going to be addressing this question later, so please tell me how you think the best way to answer it would be")
8 Anyone who claims they know who "won" the orals is fairly clueless, because questions and reactions have no meaning here apart from the bigger picture as noted above.
9 But from the orals, you can get a taste of the stances by each side.
My personal observation is that I didn't hear anything from the orals that surprised me or changed my previous summary and analysis.
* In the appeal, the defense is arguing for additional evidence to be excluded in this case. Part of their argument is that when LE makes an error, the state should change its laws and penalize LE to a greater degree than the US Supreme Court says is required, even though that has not been the law before (and the SC ruling that is being referenced was decided all the way back in 2004, so this really isn't new). The other part is that the state abused its subpoena powers (a subpoena is issued by a prosecutor) to get access to info for an investigation, when a warrant (issued by a judge) was required by law.
* In reply, the state says the current law is fine, and that rights of defendants have to be balanced with those of victims in deciding to discard proof of a crime. And regarding the evidence that the defense says needed a warrant and should be excluded because there wasn't one, the state replies that type of evidence NEVER needs a warrant. Their additional argument is that even if you tossed out some extra evidence in regards to Lewis case itself, the remaining evidence was so overwhelming that Lewis would still have been easily convicted.
* My personal opinion from both briefs and orals is that the state is more likely than not to prevail on the above, and that to the extent they lose on some of it, it's not likely to be seen as enough difference to lead to a new trial. But I don't know these judges and their tendencies, so who knows.
* In the cross-appeal, the state is arguing that some evidence was erroneously excluded, while the defense disagrees. Overlaying that is the issue of timeliness. My reading is that the issue needs clarification as to what the law says, regardless of timeliness, because of future cases in the system being impacted, and I think the state clearly has it right. So imo either the state wins outright (if timely) or they win with an asterisk (if not).
