M A RQU ETTE LAW SCH OOL > Shedding Light on Hot Issues
Law Student Argues on Winning Side Before GB 9.5/13.5of dropAppeals cap U.S.odyCourt for the Armed Headline GB 18Forces blue
B F
600 word story. or an audience packing the Appellate Courtroom likelihood” of harm—even if no harm occurred—and Body GB 9.5/13.5 1st para in Marquette Law School’s Eckstein Hall, it was would have been unable to respond if the child had Body GB 9.5/13.5 Body GB 9.5/13.5 a rare chance to see the U.S. Court of Appeals been in need. Questions from the panel of judges for the Armed Forces at work. For Marquette law included where the line should be drawn between bad student Joshua J. Bryant, it was an even more unusual parenting and endangerment and how to determine opportunity—a chance to participate in the process. whether there had been a “substantial likelihood” of Bryant, a third-year law student this past spring harm to the child. (and now an attorney at Meissner Tierney Fisher & Three months after the oral arguments, the court Nichols in Milwaukee), appeared as amicus curiae ruled, three-to-two, in favor of Plant. under attorney supervision as part of oral arguments After hearing arguments, the judges fielded questions in United States v. Staff Sergeant Joshua K. Plant, USAF. from the Eckstein Hall audience and provided advice to This was an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the law students in attendance. Armed Forces from a court martial conviction upheld Chief Judge James E. Baker said that lawyers shouldn’t by the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals. Marquette try to impersonate Clarence Darrow in court. “Do not be Law School hosted the argument in April as part of in a race to find your legal voice,” he said. “It will come.” the Armed Forces court’s judicial outreach program. Judge Scott W. Stucky advised lawyers to say what The court’s program includes the opportunity for a law they need to say and stop, even if time remains. “Sit student to participate in the argument as amicus curiae. down, and you’ll earn favor in heaven,” he said. Looking back on his appearance before the court, The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Bryant said it was “an opportunity to step outside of is based in Washington, D.C., but holds occasional my comfort zone and gain valuable experience.” He sessions around the country as part of a public said, “Working through the legal issues presented by awareness program. Professor Scott Idleman and the case and refining the brief were activities that Adjunct Professor Al Rohmeyer helped bring the court benefited me immediately in making the transition to Eckstein Hall. from student to lawyer. And I know the experience of actually arguing before an appellate court will be of long-term great benefit.” The defendant, Plant, was convicted in 2012 News large grey quote of aggravated sexual assault, adultery, and child endangerment; he appealed only the child endangerment conviction. His 13-month-old child was sleeping during a party that Plant hosted, but was not actually harmed. Plant’s civilian attorney, Philip D. Cave, argued that News Quote Attribution hosting a party and becoming intoxicated while a child was asleep did not meet the definition of endangerment. Bryant’s argument, which he presented both in a brief and in person before the five-judge panel, supported Plant’s appeal. Bryant argued that the explanation of negligence in the military’s Manual for Courts-Martial had not been correctly applied to the case and, in particular, that the government had not shown at trial that Plant’s alcohol use itself caused endangerment of his son. U.S. Air Force Captain Thomas J. Alford argued for the government that Plant put his child in “substantial Joshua J. Bryant
Marquette Lawyer
5