Oral arguments are spoken to a judge or appellate court by a lawyer (or parties when representing themselves) of the legal reasons why they should prevail. Oral argument at the appellate level accompanies written briefs, which also advance the argument of each party in the legal dispute. Oral arguments can also occur during motion practice when one of the parties presents a motion to the court for consideration before trial, such as when the case is to be dismissed on a point of law, or when summary judgment may lie because there are no factual issues in dispute.
Oral argument operates by each party in a case taking turns to speak directly to the judge or judges with an equal amount of time allotted to each. A party may often reserve part of their time to be used for rebuttal after their adversary has presented.
Presenting lawyers usually cannot get away with simply making speeches or reading their briefs when presenting oral argument to an appeal court. Unlike trial court procedure, where judges intervene only when asked by the parties to resolve objections, it is typical for judges at the appellate level to be active participants in oral argument, interrupting the presenting lawyers and asking questions. This is true even of courts that are formed of panels of multiple judges, such as the United States Supreme Court, where a presenting lawyer must be prepared to handle questions from any of the nine justices. It is also true that when a motion is made before or during trial that the lawyers conduct themselves before the judge in a manner similar to the presentation of the case on appeal, the lawyers present their arguments to the judge in a more conversational mode; in some pre-trial proceedings these appearances may not be recorded by court stenographers as they are invariably recorded in appellate proceedings.
Oral argument is not always considered an essential part of due process, as the briefs also give the parties an opportunity to be heard by the court. Whether a court will permit, require, or guarantee the opportunity to present oral argument is usually left up to each court to decide as part of its rules of procedure, with differences from court to court even within a single jurisdiction. Some courts may guarantee the right to present oral argument, either requiring the parties to request to present or their waiver if they do not wish to, while other courts may require oral argument without the ability to waive it. Courts may also have the discretion to decide a case without presentation of oral argument, rendering their judgment entirely based on the arguments set forth in the parties' briefs.
Famous quotes containing the words united states, oral, argument, united and/or states:
“I thought it altogether proper that I should take a brief furlough from official duties at Washington to mingle with you here to-day as a comrade, because every President of the United States must realize that the strength of the Government, its defence in war, the army that is to muster under its banner when our Nation is assailed, is to be found here in the masses of our people.”
—Benjamin Harrison (1833–1901)
“We have seen over and over that white male historians in general have tended to dismiss any history they didn’t themselves write, on the grounds that it is unserious, unscholarly, a fad, too “political,” “merely” oral and thus unreliable.”
—Adrienne Rich (b. 1929)
“Because a person is born the subject of a given state, you deny the sovereignty of the people? How about the child of Cuban slaves who is born a slave, is that an argument for slavery? The one is a fact as well as the other. Why then, if you use legal arguments in the one case, you don’t in the other?”
—Franz Grillparzer (1791–1872)
“We are apt to say that a foreign policy is successful only when the country, or at any rate the governing class, is united behind it. In reality, every line of policy is repudiated by a section, often by an influential section, of the country concerned. A foreign minister who waited until everyone agreed with him would have no foreign policy at all.”
—A.J.P. (Alan John Percivale)
“Maybe we were the blind mechanics of disaster, but you don’t pin the guilt on the scientists that easily. You might as well pin it on M motherhood.... Every man who ever worked on this thing told you what would happen. The scientists signed petition after petition, but nobody listened. There was a choice. It was build the bombs and use them, or risk that the United States and the Soviet Union and the rest of us would find some way to go on living.”
—John Paxton (1911–1985)