Supreme Court justices are notoriously stingy with praise for the lawyers arguing before them.
But Frances Forsman, a self-described "old hippie" who is the federal public defender for Nevada, won high, if indirect praise from Justice John Paul Stevens on Nov. 1.
Arguing for the defendant in Whorton v. Bockting, Forsman deftly made the case that the 2004 Crawford v. Washington ruling on the confrontation clause was fundamental enough to be made retroactive.
She even made a joke -- a risky move, especially for a first-timer at the Court. The ability to cross-examine a witness is essential for any defendant, she said, "even if he was Duke Power Company and had every lawyer at the highest hourly rate representing him" -- a reference to Sidley Austin's Carter Phillips, who had appeared in the Environmental Defense v. Duke Energy case argued just before her. The justices were grinning.
As her half hour was about to end, Stevens leaned forward and said, "May I ask you a personal question? Were you a moot court finalist?" Startled, Forsman said she was not. Stevens replied, "I attended a moot court at Notre Dame in about your year and it was an awfully good moot court." The audience laughed, but it was clearly a compliment.
"I was highly flattered," says the 59-year-old Forsman, whose father was in the audience and whose son -- Joshua Zive of Bracewell & Giuliani in D.C. -- was at the counsel table with her.
Congratulations to Ms. Forsman on a job well done. And to journalist Tony Mauro of Legal Times, who wrote the article quoted from above, and whose work is always excellent and is frequently quoted here. Details here via Law.com.