• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« Miller & Chevalier Joins List of Firms Lobbying for Motion Picture Association | Main | SEC Demands Deloitte Chinese Unit Appear In U.S. Court »

October 14, 2011



Daniels was not trial counsel and was not retrying the case. One of the arguments on appeal was a sufficiency of evidence argument. The standard on appeal is de novo so it is appropriate to argue in that vein whether the facts passed muster at trial to support the convictions.


"the worst thing that can happen to an attorney is . . . to lose a case that they should have won for a client."

Is Daniels trying to argue that the decision should be reversed because she doesn't like to lose at trial?

It would be interesting to see the briefs on this one. The way this article is written, the oral argument sounds like a retrying of facts.


Mindy Daniels made a great argument. She was really effective at pressing her client's case. I hope the judges can look beyond the jury's verdict to see that the lack of evidence should not have allowed a guilty verdict.


This is a great breakdown of a fascinating case. I wonder if cold-blooded execution will equate to planning or foresight in the jury's mind. In the end, the emotion-based arguments made by both sides will likely carry the day, right? Legal definitions seem almost secondary to the outcome in a trial case with such an emotionally charged, personal component.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad