[Cboldt]

My pleasure. There is a question about how closely Elliott's trial brief (which Pellegrini had) tracks the appeal brief. The appeal docket was very compressed (a couple days), and the PA Supreme Court said that it would take the trial submissions with new cover pages.

I am pretty sure that Pellegrini was presented with Rogers v. Bellei, and that instead of arguing against the various contentions raised directly by Elliott, he just selected what he wanted to out of Cruz's brief, which will naturally yield the result Pellegrini was determined to deliver.

[patlin]

As I am reading the briefs, I'm scratching my head at how generalized the arguments are, never truly homing in on the critical elements that truly seal the deal so to speak.

Now if I am wrong, please correct me, but it is my understanding, from the study of Scalia’s works and the case law he provides for one to study, should not the emphasis of ones brief be finely tuned to the specifics and leave the generalities to the oral arguments? Because in most cases, as Scalia repeatedly admits, more often than not, the judge's mind is made up not during oral arguments, but from the briefs themselves. The oral arguments only strengthen ones case, or allow for any questions the judge might have.