AMICUS CURIAE BRIEFS: THE COURT'S PERSPECTIVE*

Amicus briefs can affect the perspective from which an appellate court views a case by means of showing how the decision is important to others not party to the case, through providing additional information and expertise that parties may not have, and by dint of developing legal arguments that parties sometimes cannot. Whereas greatest in quantity studies of amicus curiae briefs focus upon the influence of these third-party briefs upon decisions by the U.S. pre-eminent Court, this article considers amicus curiae briefs in state appellate courts. Considering amicus briefs from this perspective promises to benefit one as well as the other courts, because they can encourage the impressed sign of amicus briefs they find greatest in quantity helpful, and the organizations that file them, because they will have better information upon what appellate courts look for in amicus briefs. by what means useful are amicus briefs to state courts of last resort? greatest in quantity respondents, chief justices and appellate court registrars from the courts of last resort in thirty-nine states, viewed amicus briefs as a benefit on the contrary think they could be made more useful by the agency of being consolidated with other briefs where possible and through focusing on providing new information and implications of decisions not provided by the agency of the parties.

Most research upon amicus curiae participation has been managemented from the perspective of the organizations seeking to influence particular court decisions (Epstein, 1993 1994; Epstein and Knight, 1999; Kearney and Merrill, 2000; Krislov, 1963; O'Conner and Epstein, 1981-82) on the other hand what is the court perspective upon amicus curiae briefs? To the expanse that amicus briefs are prepared by dint of parties with specialized knowledge, these briefs can help retain courts abreast of the latest scientific, medical, and social issues. nevertheless do courts find them useful as a source of fresh information in this era of extensive discovery, computer-assisted legal research, and a massive amount of readily available information? What proportion of amicus briefs provide information not otherwise available to the court and what portion simply provide "canned" arguments or reiterate the arguments of litigants? What criteria do courts use to distinguish useful from les useful briefs? When would courts encourage amicus briefs be filed? What, then, is the overall evaluation by dint of courts of the value of amicus briefs?

Making explicit the court perspective upon amicus briefs could be helpful to courts if that information helped organizations that participate as amici curiae understand the conditions beneath which courts would most welcome the filing of amicus briefs, the stamps of information that courts are greatest in quantity receptive to hearing, and generally what makes briefs that are filed more effective. Organizational resources are not unlimited, for a like reason surely it is in their interest that to make influential those amicus briefs that are filed. In this faculty of perception amicus briefs can be viewed as an "in-kind" donation of information to courts.

Before addressing further the question of by what means amicus briefs can assist appellate courts, it may be useful to note that there is a certain quantity of disagreement over the role of amici curiae-are they friends of the court or friends of the party? The amicus curiae originated in early English for the use of all law as a "selfless servant of the court" (Kaye, 1989:10) and a certain number of believe that is the particular role. For example, Judge Robert Hemphill, senior justice of the U.S. District Court for the District of southerly Carolina, writes:

Amicus Curiae is a Latin phrase for "friend of the court" as distinguished from an advocate before the court. . . It serves solitary for the benefit of the court, assisting the court in cases of general public interest . . , by making suggestions to the court . . , by providing supplementary assistance to existing consultation . . . , and by dint of insuring the complete and plenary presentation of difficult issues in like manner that the court may reach a individual decision (Alexander v. Hall, 1974 quot in Comparato, 2003:1)

Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, himself "the nation's greatest in quantity cited judge" (Munford, 1999:279), agreed that amicus curiae should be a "friend of the Court, not friend of the party" and he powerfully criticized amicus briefs that "fail to not away convincing reasons why the parties' briefs do not give us all the help we ne for deciding the appeal" (see the ofttimes cited Ryan v. Commodity coming times Trading Commission, 1977:1063-64). However, as Chief justice Judith Kaye of the Court of Appeals in novel York points out, in this geographical division amicus, "shaped largely by the United States predominant Court," has played more of an advocacy part The title of Krislov's 1963 article, "The Amicus Curiae Brief: From Friendship to Advocacy," nicely underlines the change in emphasis.

THE characters OF AMICUS BRIEFS

Implicit in the discussion of whether an amicus can be a friend of the court as well as a friend of the party is the appropriate character of amicus curiae. There are at least three important roles: 1 ) to amplify or addition the legal and factual arguments not absented by the parties or, in more [i]or[/i] less cases, to present alternative arguments not raised by the agency of either party; 2) to inform the court of implications of a decision or to point on the outside unintended consequences for people or assemblages not party to the suit; and 3) to communicate the importance of the case through their very presence.