The Volokh Conspiracy - Satire in the "Questions Presented" Section of Appellate Briefs

is probably best avoided. From Newman v. Commowealth, 2009 WL 2431289 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 11):

[One of appellant's "questions presented" was:]

4. Is it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the manufacturer of the equipment used to test breath in driving under the influence cases refuses to divulge to any state or Federal agency, to any court, to any defendant, to any prosecutor or to any trier of fact the information programmed into the equipment and which controls the operation of and the results obtained from the equipment[?] Is it a further violation of law that the Commonwealth requires the courts, the prosecution, the defense and the triers of fact to take on faith alone that the information programmed into these machines is correct?

[Footnote:] At oral argument, appellant's counsel informed the Court that appellant's "question presented" concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was "satirical" in nature. Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law."

My guess is that the "satirical" question did not improve the appellant's chances.

	[Eugene Volokh, August 12, 2009 at 8:03pm] Trackbacks Satire in the "Questions Presented" Section of Appellate Briefs is probably best avoided. From Newman v. Commowealth, 2009 WL 2431289 (Va. Ct. App. Aug. 11): [One of appellant's "questions presented" was:] 4. Is it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States when the manufacturer of the equipment used to test breath in driving under the influence cases refuses to divulge to any state or Federal agency, to any court, to any defendant, to any prosecutor or to any trier of fact the information programmed into the equipment and which controls the operation of and the results obtained from the equipment[?] Is it a further violation of law that the Commonwealth requires the courts, the prosecution, the defense and the triers of fact to take on faith alone that the information programmed into these machines is correct? [Footnote:] At oral argument, appellant's counsel informed the Court that appellant's "question presented" concerning the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution was "satirical" in nature. Rule 3.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct states, "A lawyer shall not bring or defend a proceeding, or assert or controvert an issue therein, unless there is a basis for doing so that is not frivolous, which includes a good faith argument for an extension, modification or reversal of existing law." My guess is that the "satirical" question did not improve the appellant's chances.