Merrick Garland’s decisions are receiving much attention following his nomination by President Barack Obama to the U.S. Supreme Court. Last week, The National Law Journal ran a story about his first published opinion for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, United States v. Turner, as evidence of his legal acumen and sound judgment.
My friend and fellow criminal defense attorney David Smith, who represented the defendant in that case, was quoted in the story as saying that Garland “reached the right conclusion,” and that his opinion for the court was a “model of good legal writing and reasoning.” There is no doubt that Garland is eminently qualified to serve on the Supreme Court — even though he rarely votes in favor of criminal defendants on appeal. But my friend David was wrong that Garland’s first opinion was a model of legal reasoning.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
