Description

"There is little doubt that the marked trend of the law toward expanded rights of defendants, a trend so noticeable over the past two decades, has been influenced in part by the imbalance of the representation equation before the Court. I do not imply that the central core of this trend would not have been pretty much the same. There were areas of the criminal law, implicating important constitutional guarantees, that urgently needed reexamination and reform. But the fact is, as very judge knows, that the quality of advocacy - the research, briefing and oral argument of the close and difficult cases - does contribute significantly to the development of precedents." - Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., Remarks to the Fifth Circuit Judicial Conference, New Orleans, May 1974.1 Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr.'s remarks in 1974, two years after his appointment to the United States Supreme Court, emphasise the role played by counsel representing criminal defendants in the Due Process Revolution of the 1960s. Powell's suggestion that the quality of advocacy contributes significantly to the outcome of Supreme Court cases is reinforced by many of his judicial colleagues and predecessors. The current Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, is on record in his view that oral argument is a crucial tool for appellate advocates, while Justice John M. Harlan, II, former Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justice William Brennan have all remarked on the vital role played by advocates in the judicial process.2 The work of trial lawyers has received a good deal of academic attention - indeed, one of the cases considered by this thesis, Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), concerns the importance of counsel in state criminal trials.3 Much less attention has been paid, however, to appellate advocacy and the ability of lawyers to influence the outcome of Supreme Court cases, despite repeated comments from the bench that advocacy matters