Prosecutor-Side Criminal Appellate Work? 3L Forum

[Anonymous User]

Hello TLS, the District Attorney 2016 thread is pretty much full of other 3Ls, so I figured I would try to post it in the general employment board.

I've just been offered a job at one of the big prosecutor offices that hire prebar. As a median-boned TTT 164, I'm naturally feeling very hashtag blessed that I tricked an office into giving me an offer. However, it is specifically in that office's Appeals Bureau which was somewhat of a shock to me: one, that they separate new hires that early, and two that with my lackluster background they think I'm the "law guy".

I've done some minor research on this site and really can only find advice regarding internships ("you'll do research, network so you can get hired, etc.") or advice to 0Ls who want to argue in front of the Supreme Court ("LOL retake"). I've gotten a sense of the day-to-day work, but I'm now considering my long term goals.

What is the career trajectory for this type of work? I feel like every time I hear about DA exit options, everyone highlights the vast amount of trial experience. However in Appeals, I will NEVER first seat a trial. Even if I transfer to a different bureau in a year's time, I will essentially be a 1st year again, as I would have missed the year's worth of trial training. Criminal Appeals is a very niche field, and I just don't see being able to port it over to a private or civil context.

How are prosecution Appeals bureaus viewed in the professional world? Is it just where offices like to hide the aspies? Is there any real prestige in it (i.e. judgemaker)? I've done some linkedin sleuthing, but all I can see is very few HYSCCN people who left after 3 years to do BigLaw, absolutely not applicable to me.

What about the ethics of it? I imagine that most of my cases will be advocating that an apparatus of the state totally did not trample upon the rights of a defendant (Shh Bby Is Ok, Affirm Plz). For Christ's sake, am I going to be Bruce Jacob from Gideon's Trumpet?

I think this office is amazing, but I'm at the stage where I'm considering taking a trial position at another office that I really don't like just so I don't get pigeonholed.

I'm sorry that this is somewhat non-focused and "braggy", I am just at a loss as how to evaluate my position. My career office is not helpful at all. My references, I love them, but they are just being super-polite and generally just happy for me (i.e. "Yay! You're such a good little researcher!"), and I kinda need TLS's tough-love.


I made this Anon, because this is a "live" offer.

[A. Nony Mouse]

I have heard of a number of offices that do this, start people in appeals, so it's probably less about you than it is about their office policy. People do a chunk of time there, then move to a trial unit. The idea may be that spending a bunch of time reviewing appeals will familiarize you with the basic appeal issues and help you avoid them when you get to trial. The idea is that you won't leave immediately but will stay for a bit and get that trial experience, and then your exit options will be whatever they normally would be.

I don't think in such an office you'll be pigeonholed. But you can certainly ask your contact in the office how long people stay in appeals and what their next steps are.

Not sure why you're raising ethical concerns about doing appeals if you don't have ethical concerns about doing the work at the trial level
- it's all of a piece.

[Anonymous User]

Hello TLS, the District Attorney 2016 thread is pretty much full of other 3Ls, so I figured I would try to post it in the general employment board.

I've just been offered a job at one of the big prosecutor offices that hire prebar. As a median-boned TTT 164, I'm naturally feeling very hashtag blessed that I tricked an office into giving me an offer. However, it is specifically in that office's Appeals Bureau which was somewhat of a shock to me: one, that they separate new hires that early, and two that with my lackluster background they think I'm the "law guy".

I've done some minor research on this site and really can only find advice regarding internships ("you'll do research, network so you can get hired, etc.") or advice to 0Ls who want to argue in front of the Supreme Court ("LOL retake"). I've gotten a sense of the day-to-day work, but I'm now considering my long term goals.

What is the career trajectory for this type of work? I feel like every time I hear about DA exit options, everyone highlights the vast amount of trial experience. However in Appeals, I will NEVER first seat a trial. Even if I transfer to a different bureau in a year's time, I will essentially be a 1st year again, as I would have missed the year's worth of trial training. Criminal Appeals is a very niche field, and I just don't see being able to port it over to a private or civil context.

How are prosecution Appeals bureaus viewed in the professional world? Is it just where offices like to hide the aspies? Is there any real prestige in it (i.e. judgemaker)? I've done some linkedin sleuthing, but all I can see is very few HYSCCN people who left after 3 years to do BigLaw, absolutely not applicable to me.

What about the ethics of it? I imagine that most of my cases will be advocating that an apparatus of the state totally did not trample upon the rights of a defendant (Shh Bby Is Ok, Affirm Plz). For Christ's sake, am I going to be Bruce Jacob from Gideon's Trumpet?

I think this office is amazing, but I'm at the stage where I'm considering taking a trial position at another office that I really don't like just so I don't get pigeonholed.

I'm sorry that this is somewhat non-focused and "braggy", I am just at a loss as how to evaluate my position. My career office is not helpful at all. My references, I love them, but they are just being super-polite and generally just happy for me (i.e. "Yay! You're such a good little researcher!"), and I kinda need TLS's tough-love.


I made this Anon, because this is a "live" offer.

'

Just try it out for a couple years and see if you like it. You might realize that you like it better than trial work. I always thought I wanted to do trial work but did an appellate clerkship and wound up getting hired to do appellate work after the clerkship. I found that I actually really enjoyed doing appellate work more (there's an intellectual component to it that I really enjoy). If your long-term goal is to go to biglaw or into private criminal practice, that's not going to happen coming out of some DA's "prosecution appeals bureau," since you won't be acquiring relevant skills. But, at the same time, you don't really need to get into the trenches doing appeals. You kind of just sit in ivory tower and research and write. Trial attorneys will come to you for advice, since you're going to be known as one of the "smart people" in appeals. I bet doing DA appeals will be a 9-5 job, 40 hour a week job, as well, which is something that's pretty damn rare in the legal field. It'll also be an incredibly easy job, since appellate courts pretty much always affirm the trial courts when it benefits the prosecution. (There's not very many cases where appellate courts reverse convictions, and even where they do, it's almost never an outright reversal. For example, in the state that I went to law school, the prosecutors wouldn't even bother to file briefs in the vast majority of cases, and they still pretty much always won.)

If you wind up deciding you still really want to do trial work, I think you'll have those opportunities, as long as you take them within a couple years there. (If you're there doing appeals for something like 15 years, then, yes, you're definitely going to have a much harder time ever leaving.)

[Anonymous User]

It'll also be an incredibly easy job, since appellate courts pretty much always affirm the trial courts when it benefits the prosecution. (There's not very many cases where appellate courts reverse convictions, and even where they do, it's almost never an outright reversal. For example, in the state that I went to law school, the prosecutors wouldn't even bother to file briefs in the vast majority of cases, and they still pretty much always won.)

To be fair, this isn't something appellate courts "do" to benefit the prosecution, it's because criminal defendants have the right to appeal so always do, even when there's nothing wrong with the case. There are a LOT of routine cases and the same issues recur (striking/not striking jurors, admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, etc.), but occasionally there are actually real issues to address.

[Anonymous User]

It'll also be an incredibly easy job, since appellate courts pretty much always affirm the trial courts when it benefits the prosecution. (There's not very many cases where appellate courts reverse convictions, and even where they do, it's almost never an outright reversal. For example, in the state that I went to law school, the prosecutors wouldn't even bother to file briefs in the vast majority of cases, and they still pretty much always won.)

To be fair, this isn't something appellate courts "do" to benefit the prosecution, it's because criminal defendants have the right to appeal so always do, even when there's nothing wrong with the case. There are a LOT of routine cases and the same issues recur (striking/not striking jurors, admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, etc.), but occasionally there are actually real issues to address.

I think it's partially a systemic issue. Who are the judges? Well, in state court the judges that handle primarily handle criminal cases are former prosecutors. Public defenders don't and can't win judicial elections, and judicial elections are how state court judges, including appellate court judges, are selected. So, of course, those judges are going to work really hard at avoiding keeping "those criminals" in prison, and not reverse convictions whenever possible (especially in cases where there were serious crimes committing). Moreover, every time they reverse a serious conviction, it winds up in the media, and improves the likelihood that the judge(s) won't be re-elected, so they'd basically be working their way out of a job. If you really sit down and think about whether a lot of the law that exists makes sense, you'll quickly realize that it doesn't unless you're trying reach a particular result (which is precisely what most judges are doing). I mean, for example, think about the reasonable doubt standard for an outright reversal on appeal. You can't get an outright reversal unless, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, no reasonable jury could have found the defendant guilty. That's a pretty damn high standard. But then look at reasonable doubt cases. You'll notice that cases the only cases that are reversed are ones where evidence of a particular element of a crime is entirely missing. Courts will make pretty large inferences (in favor of the prosecution, of course) to find some evidence of every element of the crime to make sure that the conviction stands. So, essentially, very, very few cases ever get reversed outright.

[A. Nony Mouse]

Um... 1) not all states elect judges; 2) all the former prosecutors I know who became judges bend over backwards to be fair to defendants, knowing that they come from a prosecution background, and are not trying to keep "those criminals" in prison; 3) outright reversals are relatively rare because the right to appeal means that the vast majority of cases don't have any real appealable issues but get appealed anyway, so you're not actually looking at what percentage of cases that actually raise real issues succeed; 4) the vast majority of reversals never get media attention because nobody cares, so aren't deterring judges (and even when there is media attention, no one even looks at which judges wrote the opinion - it's just the "X state court of appeals"; 5) the law requires judges to take the evidence in the light most favorable to whatever the outcome was (admittedly normally conviction), so doing so isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I mean, yeah, it's difficult to get a case overturned, and there are some egregious results of that, but they're the ones that get all the media attention - not the vast majority of perfectly reasonable outcomes, because they're not news.

I think you're just making wild assumptions about judges, too. Based on my experience with criminal appeals, anyway.

[Nomo]

All defendant's have a right to an appeal. This leads to a lot of weak appeals. Many of the weak appeals are "insufficient evidence" appeals. Insufficient evidence means that even if the jury believed all the prosecutions evidence, and made all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the prosecution, it still should have found the defendant not guilty because the State's evidence didn't cover some element of the offense. There are a ton of meritless appeals that essentially ignore the insufficient evidence standard and simply argue that the state's evidence on some element was weaker than the defense's evidence.

There are also a lot of appeals where the defense attorney finds some error, but the error is harmless (meaning its more likely than not that the error did not have an affect on the jury's verdict). We're talking about minor trial errors here: the prosecutor uses the phrase "I believe" in closing; the judge let's in some inconsequential hearsay statement; the judge let's in too much cumulative evidence; etc.

A lot of appeals are losers because the standards on appeal are stacked heavily in favor of upholding the verdict (this is true in civil and criminal cases). The judge's factual findings are only reversed if they're clearly wrong. Many evidentiary rulings are up to a judge's discretion and are only reversed if the judge abused his/her discretion. Sentences are also reviewed with great deference to the trial court.

A lot of errors occur without an objection from the defense attorney. Different jurisdictions have different standards in this situation, but the bar for getting a verdict reversed on something like this is very very high.

You will spend the vast majority of your time reviewing the record and then arguing that the judge wasn't clearly wrong, didn't abuse her discretion, or that the error didn't affect the verdict. You will spend far less time arguing novel legal issues that are reviewed de novo, especially in your early years.

[Anonymous User]

Hello TLS, the District Attorney 2016 thread is pretty much full of other 3Ls, so I figured I would try to post it in the general employment board.

I've just been offered a job at one of the big prosecutor offices that hire prebar. As a median-boned TTT 164, I'm naturally feeling very hashtag blessed that I tricked an office into giving me an offer. However, it is specifically in that office's Appeals Bureau which was somewhat of a shock to me: one, that they separate new hires that early, and two that with my lackluster background they think I'm the "law guy".

I've done some minor research on this site and really can only find advice regarding internships ("you'll do research, network so you can get hired, etc.") or advice to 0Ls who want to argue in front of the Supreme Court ("LOL retake"). I've gotten a sense of the day-to-day work, but I'm now considering my long term goals.

What is the career trajectory for this type of work? I feel like every time I hear about DA exit options, everyone highlights the vast amount of trial experience. However in Appeals, I will NEVER first seat a trial. Even if I transfer to a different bureau in a year's time, I will essentially be a 1st year again, as I would have missed the year's worth of trial training. Criminal Appeals is a very niche field, and I just don't see being able to port it over to a private or civil context.

How are prosecution Appeals bureaus viewed in the professional world? Is it just where offices like to hide the aspies? Is there any real prestige in it (i.e. judgemaker)? I've done some linkedin sleuthing, but all I can see is very few HYSCCN people who left after 3 years to do BigLaw, absolutely not applicable to me.

What about the ethics of it? I imagine that most of my cases will be advocating that an apparatus of the state totally did not trample upon the rights of a defendant (Shh Bby Is Ok, Affirm Plz). For Christ's sake, am I going to be Bruce Jacob from Gideon's Trumpet?

I think this office is amazing, but I'm at the stage where I'm considering taking a trial position at another office that I really don't like just so I don't get pigeonholed.

I'm sorry that this is somewhat non-focused and "braggy", I am just at a loss as how to evaluate my position. My career office is not helpful at all. My references, I love them, but they are just being super-polite and generally just happy for me (i.e. "Yay! You're such a good little researcher!"), and I kinda need TLS's tough-love.


I made this Anon, because this is a "live" offer.

Lol you're hilarious, in a good way.
I've always heard that usaos prefer appeals, especially if you get in a few trials.