Page 21 - Briefcase Volume 37 Number 1

UH LAW CENTER STUDENTS SEE JUSTICE IN ACTION DURING

TEXAS APPEALS COURT ORAL ARGUMENTS
suppress the evidence obtained from all
three blood draws. A trial court granted
his motion for the first two, but not
the third. After waiving a jury trial and
pleading guilty, he is now appealing
the trial court’s denial of his motion to
suppress evidence obtained in the third
blood draw.
When responding to inquiries from
students, Busby and Jewell highlighted
the significance of clear and persuasive
writing.
“A brief is where you want to make your
clearest argument,” Busby said. “I’m a big
fan of highly-organized briefs where it’s
not a mystery until you get to the end
and try to figure out what the point is.
Tell us up front. Don’t wait until page 30
when you’ve developed all the arguments
to develop the punchline. Give it to us
The University of Houston Law Center community received an up-close look at how the Texas
14th Court of Appeals operates. up front so that we understand your
conclusion.”
A three-judge panel of the Texas 14th Court of Appeals heard oral “I cannot emphasize enough how much you must practice your writing,”
arguments on two connected civil cases and a criminal case in Jewell added. “Whenever I’m asked, ‘what’s the one thing I can be doing
September at the University of Houston Law Center. to maximize to get a job and keep a job?’ I always tell them to practice
Justices Marc Brown, Brett Busby and Kevin Jewell heard arguments in their writing. You can never practice enough.”
Krost Hall before participating in a question-and-answer session with Brown highlighted the importance of members of the bench remaining
students. Brown ’87 and Jewell ’93 are Law Center alumni. Busby has impartial, especially when a ruling by the court does not reflect their
previously served as an adjunct professor at the Law Center. personal beliefs.
“Being able to host these oral arguments made for a very exciting day at “We are bound by precedent and I can certainly think of situations
the Law Center,” Dean Leonard M. Baynes said. “I would like to thank where a finding of the court didn’t make me happy,” Brown said. “But the
the 14th Court of Appeals and Justices Brown, Busby and Jewell for law is what the law is. When you take that oath, that’s what you sign up
being here and Chief Justice Kem Thompson Frost who helped us secure for. Justice Scalia said, ‘If you agree with every opinion you write, you’re
the court’s sitting on our campus. These sessions were terrific for our not doing your job.’”
students who were able to see how law gets made.”
The oral arguments began with two civil cases: Harpst et al. v. Fleming
et al. and Wilson et al. v. Fleming et al. The cases are related appeals
of a jury verdict and a summary judgment. In both cases, the plaintiffs
are former clients of a lawyer and his law firm. The firm represented
the plaintiffs in settling a mass-tort lawsuit against a pharmaceutical
company. The plaintiffs claimed that the firm improperly deducted
certain expenses from the plaintiff’s settlement amounts.
The third case, Islas v. State of Texas, involved a motorist who was
indicted on a felony charge of intoxication manslaughter. In 2014, the
appellant ran a red light and struck another vehicle, killing a passenger.
He was taken to a hospital where his blood was drawn three times: by
the hospital for medical reasons, by the state without a search warrant, UH Law Center students were able to ask the justices questions
and again by the state with a search warrant. The appellant moved to after the oral arguments.

law.uh.edu 21