« Ind. Courts - Disciplinary Commission Executive Secretary Donald R. Lundberg resigns effective Jan.1, 2010 to join Barnes and Thornburg | Main | Ind. Law - "But for luck, lawmaker Ed Delaney says, attacker would have killed him »

Wednesday, November 04, 2009

Courts - Former Indiana University administrator and "non-traditional" law student argues before SCOTUS as a Meyer Brown associate [Updated again]

Here is the story, from the Chicago Law blog. It begins:

Fourth-year associates at big law firms rarely find themselves making an argument before the U.S. Supreme Court. But that's where Steve Sanders of Mayer Brown was Wednesday morning.

He represents Pottawattamie County, Iowa, and two former county attorneys who are trying to protect their prosecutorial immunity. The issue is whether proescutors can be held liable for wrongful conviction for allegedly procuring false testimony against criminal defendants. For a full recap of the case, Pottawattamie County v. McGhee, click here.

I caught up with Sanders a few days ago to chat about how he came to appear before the high court and how he was preparing for the biggest moment in his legal career so far. (Full disclosure: Sanders was an intern at the Chicago Tribune several years ago. I did not know this before I talked to him.)

Here's some highlights from our conversation:

Chicago Law: Hi, Steve. Tell me about yourself?

Sanders: Law is a second career for me. I went to Indiana University and ended up working in the administration there. I left in 2002 and went to law school at the University of Michigan. I started at Mayer in October 2006.

I found my age (he's 46) to be an enormous asset in law school. It made me more focused. Once I got to a law firm, I also had some sense of how to understand how a place works. When I was a summer at Mayer Brown, I knew what I wanted to do (he does appellate litigation) and I built relationships with partners who have that kind of work.

Re the case itself, here is Nina Totenberg's NPR Morning Edition report. It began:
Do prosecutors have total immunity from lawsuits for anything they do, including framing someone for murder? That is the question the justices of the Supreme Court face Wednesday.

On one side of the case being argued are Iowa prosecutors who contend "there is no freestanding right not to be framed." They are backed by the Obama administration, 28 states and every major prosecutors organization in the country.

On the other side are two black men — Terry Harrington and Curtis McGhee — men who served 25 years in prison before evidence long hidden in police files resulted in them being freed.

The State of Indiana joined an amicus brief supporting the prosecutors. It is currently #2 on this list.

[More] Here is Nina Totenberg's post-argument report, from this evening's NPR's All Things Considered.

[Updated 11/5/09] For much more on the oral argument and the issues, see this entry from the WSJ Law Blog.

How Appealing collects many of the news reports here. (Headlines include "When Is It Legal To Frame A Man For Murder?")

[Updated 11/6/09] Here is a long post-argument piece headed "A Mayer Brown Associate’s Supreme Court Debut: A Post-Argument Recap," from David Lat of Above the Law.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 4, 2009 03:44 PM
Posted to Courts in general