Third Circuit Clarifies Waiver Doctrine by Distinguishing Between "Issues" and "Arguments" in a Suppression-of-the-Evidence Case

more+
less-
more+
less-

Waiver is an important concept to any appellate attorney because it determines what can and cannot be raised on appeal. Generally, an appellate court will only consider arguments that were previously raised in the trial court.

In United States v. Joseph, No. 12-3808, ---F.3d----, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 19315 (3d Cir. Sept. 19, 2013), the Third Circuit explained the degree of particularity required for a party to preserve an argument on appeal in the context of a motion to suppress evidence. In a precedential opinion authored by Judge D. Brooks Smith and joined by Judges Marjorie Rendell and Patty Schwartz, the Court explained that there is an important distinction between raising an argument and raising an issue. For parties to preserve an argument for appeal, they must have raised the same argument in the district court; simply raising a broader issue that encompasses the appellate argument is insufficient.

Please see full article below for more information.

LOADING PDF: If there are any problems, click here to download the file.

Topics:  Appeals, Evidence Suppression, Waivers

Published In: Criminal Law Updates

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP | Attorney Advertising

Don't miss a thing! Build a custom news brief:

Read fresh new writing on compliance, cybersecurity, Dodd-Frank, whistleblowers, social media, hiring & firing, patent reform, the NLRB, Obamacare, the SEC…

…or whatever matters the most to you. Follow authors, firms, and topics on JD Supra.

Create your news brief now - it's free and easy »