I.O.P. 2.4: Suggested Criteria for Oral Argument

2.4.1 Experience discloses that judges usually find oral argument unnecessary when:

(a) The issue is tightly constrained, not novel, and the briefs adequately cover the arguments;

(b) The outcome of the appeal is clearly controlled by a decision of the Supreme Court or this court; or

(c) The state of the record will determine the outcome and the sole issue is either sufficiency of the evidence, the adequacy of jury instructions, or rulings as to admissibility of evidence, and the briefs adequately refer to the record.

2.4.2 Experience discloses that judges usually vote for oral argument when:

(a) The appeal presents a substantial and novel legal issue;

(b) The resolution of an issue presented by the appeal will be of institutional or precedential value;

(c) A judge has questions to ask counsel to clarify an important legal, factual, or procedural point;

(d) A decision, legislation, or an event subsequent to the filing of the last brief may significantly bear on the case;

(e) An important public interest may be affected.

2.4.3 The foregoing criteria shall not be construed to limit any judge's discretion in voting for oral argument.