University of Arizona Law School

The University of Arizona Law School will be the location of Arizona Supreme Court oral arguments on Thursday, Nov. 6, 2014.

Two fascinating issues will be addressed Thursday, November 6, when the Arizona Supreme Court holds oral arguments during a visit to Tucson. The arguments will occur at the UA James E. Rogers College of Law (1201 E. Speedway Blvd., Ares Auditorium, Room 164), from 2:00 to 4:00 pm.

The Court will hear appellate arguments in two cases (I have stated below the issue for each; for a fuller treatment, click on the cases):

Issue: Do individual legislators have standing to challenge a law simply by alleging that a supermajority was required for its passage?

Issue: Is a criminal defendant precluded from raising an ineffective assistance of counsel claim in a successive post-conviction relief proceeding when, without fault of his own, his prior two court-appointed attorneys failed to file a petition in the two prior post-conviction relief proceedings?

Arizona_Supreme_Court_SealThe travel to Tucson is part of the Court’s statewide public education effort.

As the law school reports:

“This judicial visit is hosted by the William H. Rehnquist Center for the Constitutional Structures of Government at the James E. Rogers College of Law.”

Seating is limited and available to those who have preregistered here.

“Others are welcome on a first-come, first-serve basis as remaining space allows.”

Rehnquist Center banner logoSo far, my overscheduled Tuesday looks like it won’t accommodate a trip south to Tucson. And that’s really too bad. (Well, that’s too bad most any day, but it’s especially the case on February 26.)

The reason I’d like to drop by the University of Arizona Law School is to attend an oral argument—before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, of all legal bodies.

Here is how the Court describes itself and its civilian judges:

“The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces exercises worldwide appellate jurisdiction over members of the armed forces on active duty and other persons subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice. The Court is composed of five civilian judges appointed for 15-year terms by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate.”

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces sealThe Rehnquist Center at the law school has announced the morning event, during which law students will have the opportunity to argue; those same students have already filed an amicus brief in the case.

The Center says that the Court has never traveled to Tucson. But if that’s not enough of a draw, here are the case facts:

“GCM conviction of possession of child pornography, larceny of military property and filing a false claim. Granted issues question (1) whether the military judge abused his discretion when he failed to suppress evidence of child pornography discovered on Appellant’s personal computer in the course of an unreasonable search conducted to find contraband after Appellant was wounded in Iraq and medically evacuated to the United States; and (2) whether the Army Court erred in creating a new exception to the Fourth Amendment when it held that the Government’s search of Appellant’s personal computer was reasonable because the Government was not ‘certain’ or ‘absolutely clear’ that it would be returned to the wounded-warrior Appellant.”

From where I sit, that is a fascinating Fourth Amendment question. (Although didn’t the U.S. Supreme Court this past Term examine a question related to privacy rights on a school computer that could possibly be returned to the employer? What case was that? Anyone?) (Recently, Canada’s Supreme Court took the view that folks do have some measure of privacy, even on their work-issued computer. O Canada.)

More information about the Tuesday morning arguments is here. Included among the detail are the argument briefs (in PDF).

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,084 other followers