Opening Arguments

In January of 1987 Jeffrey Toobin is fresh out of Harvard Law School, and appointed the youngest lawyer on Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's team to investigate and try the leading figure in the Iran-Contra affair--Oliver North. For twenty-eight thrilling months, Toobin served on Walsh's staff and came of age into his profession. Toobin's first book and immersive account of that period is the story of a young man's awakening to the realities of law and a policial, legal and moral drama on a grand stage. Through this defining case of the 1980s--which featured obstruction of justice, diversion of funds, and personal corruption--Opening Arguments shows the judicial process at work. The Congressional Iran-Contra committees granted the key figures of the trial immunity, so Toobin and his colleagues had to work in the dark, without accesss to newspapers or television for weeks at a time. The Reagan Justice Department provided difficulties too. On page after page, Toobin illuminates these battles against long odds, portraying the climactic North trial itself with the eye of a novelist. Like a morality tale with few losers and no real winners, Bill Moyers calls Opening Arguments "a valuable account of how politics and law entwined in the Iran-Contra trials... Reading it can be a citizen's education, too."

This concise guide is a complete roadmap through a divorce trail from the initial interview to trial preparation to the closing argument.

While legal scholars, psychologists, and political scientists commonly voice their skepticism over the influence oral arguments have on the Court’s voting pattern, this book offers a contrarian position focused on close scrutiny of the justices’ communication within oral arguments. Malphurs examines the rhetoric, discourse, and subsequent decision-making within the oral arguments for significant Supreme Court cases, visiting their potential power and danger and revealing the rich dynamic nature of the justices’ interactions among themselves and the advocates. In addition to offering advancements in scholars’ understanding of oral arguments, this study introduces Sensemaking as an alternative to rational decision-making in Supreme Court arguments, suggesting a new model of judicial decision-making to account for the communication within oral arguments that underscores a glaring irony surrounding the bulk of related research—the willingness of scholars to criticize oral arguments but their unwillingness to study this communication. With the growing accessibility of the Court’s oral arguments and the inevitable introduction of television cameras in the courtroom, this book offers new theoretical and methodological perspectives at a time when scholars across the fields of communication, law, psychology, and political science will direct even greater attention and scrutiny toward the Supreme Court.

When the Supreme Court decides a case, the litigants make an oral presentation. This is the only public part in the steps in the Court's decision, so it provides an important window into its decision-making processes. Using transcripts, the author examines how the oral arguments work, and their effect on the Court's decisions.

Oral arguments are a key aspect of the Supreme Court's decision-making process