Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Project Outreach is "historic"

Long-time CAAFlog readers may have gleaned that I'm not much of a Project Outreach fan. But do you know who is? The Missoulian -- Western Montana's online news source. Here's a link to a Missoulian article, again courtesy of NIMJ.org, declaring yesterday's Project Outreach at the University of Montana School of Law "a historic stop in Missoula."

The article, however, refers to Judge Erdmann as "one of four panel judges" and then mentions every judge but Judge Ryan. Was she not at yesterday's argument?
Posted by Dwight Sullivan at 8:16 PM

5 comments:

John O'Connor said...

Mark me down as another person who probably shouldn't be invited to a Project Outreach anniversary party. When the CAAF was at GMU, one poster on here who was present at the hearing said that the proceedings bordered on undignified in the way the hearing was conducted in an open foyer area. I listened to the audio and came to the same conclusion.

Wed Apr 09, 08:56:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...

It could be like the recent NMCCA outreach en banc argument held at Georgetown...10 people showed up to watch and 3 were Navy JAGC students in the LL. M. program. Seems like a lot of effor for zero return.

Thu Apr 10, 12:51:00 PM EDT
Anonymous said...

I was at this outreach; because Missoula is about a three-hour drive (over the Rockies!) from Spokane, our office decided to make it an educational/recruiting trip. True, Judge Ryan was absent, but the remaining judges and the school generated a dignified proceeding, before a good-sized and attentive audience. I would love to see the Court make the trip to Gonzaga's law school (whose Dean is a recently-retired USAF JAG reservist) next term.

Fri Apr 11, 12:25:00 AM EDT
John O'Connor said...

Thanks for the insight, fitzcarraldo. This is the second time in recent months (that I know of) where there was less than a full bench for a Project Outreach case. Judge Ryan's absence might have nothing to do with the case being heard in Montana, though my understanding is that the l;ast time there was less than a full bench it was because one or two of the judges' travel got messed up. I would think the parties would want a full bench present so that they have a chance to respond to each judge's questions/concerns, an argument against Project Outreach if judges end up being absent from hearings they could have attended if they were at the CAAF courthouse.

Fri Apr 11, 09:44:00 AM EDT
Anonymous said...

Interestingly enough Judge Ryan was absent at the recent Project Outreach at Catholic U. There was a great turnout with at least 40-50 students. They were very interested and peppered the remaining judges with questions after arguments closed. Also, it seems that when defense counsel went before the court, rather than argue his own brief, he argued the brief the student amicus had filed and the judges questioned mainly on that as well. Is it possible the amicus got something defense counsel missed and having student amici appear isn't always a bad thing?

Wed Apr 23, 08:19:00 PM EDT

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)