June 01, 2009

Early Coleman-Franken Oral Argument Analysis

Ned Foley: "If the Minnesota Supreme Court rules for Franken, it would be wrong to jump to the conclusion that the court inevitably must be biased against Coleman. On the contrary, the trial court unanimously ruled against Coleman and displayed no bias or unfairness. In the end, impartial jurists reasonably might conclude that Franken has the better case on the merits. Or, alternatively, the conclusion might be that Coleman’'s attorneys failed to put before the court a winning case that perhaps, with a different strategy, they could have made."

David Schultz: "Prediction: 5-0 for Franken with a decision by the July 4, holiday."

Star-Tribune (quoting Guy Charles: "''What's remarkable about the whole oral argument is that there were very few questions, if any, asked on what we do next - what is the standard that you want us to apply,' Charles said. He predicted a unanimous ruling for Franken toward the end of June.").

Esme Murphy: "I have been unable to find any independent expert who believes Coleman will win in the Minnesota Supreme Court. In fact, I have asked the Coleman camp if they know of any expert and they not given me any names."

Eric Black

Eric Kleefeld (TPM) here, here, and here, along with quotes from Coleman's lawyers on possible further appeals and oral arguments.

More to come.

Posted by Rick Hasen at June 1, 2009 12:10 PM