A nursing student in Texas who was just days away from graduating was stabbed to death by her roommate after an argument over their cats, authorities say.

Chester Lamar Grant, 40, is facing a murder charge in the April 26 death of 23-year-old U.K. native Tamilore Odunsi in Houston. Cops responded shortly before 4 p.m. to an apartment on the city’s southside for a welfare check. Officers knocked on the door but received no answer. Then they walked around to the back of the apartment where they found blood on the concrete patio. Cops entered the apartment and found Odunsi in the kitchen suffering from numerous stab wounds. Officers also discovered Grant in the bedroom with at least one stab wound. The victim was pronounced dead while Grant was taken to the hospital with critical injuries.

Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.

Houston police told local CBS affiliate KHOU the two had been roommates for just a couple months and were in a spat over their cats. The argument escalated and Grant allegedly stabbed Odunsi before trying to take his own life. Police took Grant to the Harris County Jail on Saturday. He is being held on a $500,000 bond.

Odunsi’s family started a GoFundMe account for the woman known on TikTok as Tami Dollars or TD.

“Tami was a beautiful soul, full of light, ambition, and kindness,” the fundraiser reads. “She was just 23 years old. A devoted Christian, she was a God-fearing young woman who found strength and joy in her faith. She had a deep love for her church community, where she was actively involved and always eager to serve others with humility and grace.”

More from Law&Crime: Unprepared divorce lawyer chased down client, stabbed the mother of 4 to death to stop case going to trial: Cops

She dreamed of becoming a nurse and wanted to work with children in her new career.

Odunsi was set to graduate from nursing school just a few days before her murder, her family said. Her death is “an unimaginable loss at a moment that should have marked the beginning of a bright and promising future.”

Grant is slated to appear in court on Monday.

Oral argument is the most visible part of appellate practice. And while lawyers differ on whether a good argument will change the outcome of your case, we can all agree that it’s the thing your clients and colleagues are most likely to see you doing. Not to mention the thrilling proposition that there may one day be a blurry artist’s rendering of you inside the Supreme Court.

So, it’s natural to get anxious. Here is a beginning-to-end guide on how to conduct an oral argument effectively.

Preparing for the oral argument

First, and most important, write an excellent brief. If you’ve got a choice between mooting your brief and mooting your argument, moot the brief. Have it read for clarity to make sure you read your cases accurately and, most importantly, so a dispassionate colleague can kill your darlings before they escape out onto the docket.

Next is prepping for obvious questions. In every argument, you should have an answer to at least these:

1. What is your best case?
2. How do you distinguish your opponent’s best case?
3. For any vital fact, where in the record can we find it?
4. For any vital fact, how do you disagree with your opponent’s characterization of that fact?
5. What specific relief are you asking for?
6. Where was your objection preserved, and why is it procedurally appropriate to grant you relief?

Then there are the far trickier questions to prepare for. For instance:

1. If a fact or point of law is hotly contested, can you concede it and still win?
2. If you win, how will it affect other cases?
3. Do we need to overturn any authority?

You can’t anticipate every question. But the key to making an educated guess is taking your opponent’s argument seriously.

Far too often, we don’t dedicate enough energy and effort to understanding our opponent’s position. The most cringe-inducing arguments are usually conducted by lawyers who couldn’t have imagined losing before they walked in.

Aside from anticipating questions, you should have the first 45 seconds or so of your argument memorized. Begin with “May it please the court,” and provide a brief roadmap of the point you will argue.

Roadmapping is vitally important. First, it forces you to structure what you are going to say. Second, courts tend to interrupt you less since they know you are planning to address an issue later. Third, and perhaps most importantly, roadmaps let you indicate you don’t intend to argue a particular issue and, if the court is merciful, that can help you focus on your strongest arguments.

A good roadmap allows you to listen to questions, respond thoughtfully and return to your planned argument.

A key part of roadmapping is developing a pithy description of your argument. Look, for instance, to how then-U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar began her argument in United States v. Rahimi a case about whether the Second Amendment allowing disarming citizens subject to restraining orders:

“As this court has said, all too often, the only difference between battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun.” Prelogar then goes on to describe the due process that someone receives before a restraining order can be issued, and the rule established in earlier cases that the right to gun ownership is reserved for “law-abiding citizens.” Prelogar, as an expert, knows that the first minute is the most important real estate in her argument. If she was stopped there and asked questions for the next 10 hours, she’d still have gotten out the elevator pitch for why she should win.

Finally, before you argue, you should have a conclusion mapped out. You won’t always get a chance to give your conclusion because questions may consume your time. But a conclusion adds a veneer of polish to your argument. A good conclusion can be very simple: “Because [a short summary of your argument], we ask that this honorable court [the relief you are seeking]. “Because the trial court abused its discretion in granting this motion under the incorrect standard, we respectfully request that this court reverse that decision and remand with direction to follow the correct standard” is a totally fine conclusion that reinforces your strongest points.

In short, think about and structure your argument like a good brief, even as you consider the possibilities for interruption.

What to do during the argument

  • Approach oral argument as an opportunity to address the judge’s concerns. Often a great oral argument is an argument where a judge asks you a question you never thought about before (e.g., whether your case is in the procedurally correct posture, whether an objection was truly preserved or whether there might be some other form of relief you could ask for). Even if you stumble, it is far better to learn about a problem with your case at the argument, while it is still potentially fixable, rather than in the opinion.

  • Never make the argument about you. Your opening should never contain any more information about you than your name and the name of your client. It should not contain an admission that this is your first time arguing, or that it’s a lovely day or that you’re so excited to be in front of this wonderful court. Get to your roadmap.

  • Listen to the panel’s questions and think before you respond. Take the advice you would give to your clients during a deposition: Stop talking when you get the question, listen carefully to the question and take a beat to consider. Great orators the world over know the power of a pointed pause—taking a breath establishes you as a thoughtful advocate.

  • Quickly and candidly, acknowledge your bad facts. “Isn’t it true, Mr. Lawyer, that you only objected AFTER the witness answered the question?” Many lawyers are tempted to dodge and weave at this point. But again, just as in a deposition, begin your answer with yes or no and do not force the judge to chase you down because it will irritate the judge and reduce your credibility. A bad fact acknowledged quickly will bring far less attention than a bad fact tracked down after cross-examination.

  • Answer hypotheticals directly, no matter how apt you think it. Excise “that is not this case” from your legal vocabulary. Begin your answer with a yes or no, and only then explain the distinguishing factor from your case.

  • Be agreeable. But not too agreeable. Judges are sometimes going to ask you to concede things that wreck your case, and you need to anticipate what those things are in advance so you can know the subtle distinction between a concession you can make to build credibility for the rest of your argument and a concession that will result in the ruling against you being written before you can Uber home.

Concluding thoughts

Remember, the point of oral argument is not for you to look brilliant. It is to get a preview of what the court thinks about your case. If you welcome every question like an old friend, you will develop a reputation as a forthright advocate, even if you cannot win every case.

---

Ben Sessions, a partner at Sessions & Fleischman, has been lead counsel in more than 65 jury trials, and he has been lead counsel in numerous cases involving novel statutory and constitutional issues before the Supreme Court of Georgia and the Georgia Court of Appeals. He’s a frequently presenter on motions and trial practice. He can be reached at [email protected].

Andrew Fleischman, a partner at Sessions & Fleischman, is a trial and appellate lawyer specializing in Georgia criminal and First Amendment law with an experience in oral arguments. He has been published in The New York Times, The Hill, Slate, The Daily Beast, Arc Digital and the Ordinary Times. He can be reached at [email protected].

---

ABAJournal.com is accepting queries for original, thoughtful, nonpromotional articles and commentary by unpaid contributors to run in the Your Voice section. Details and submission guidelines are posted at “Your Submissions, Your Voice.”

---

This column reflects the opinions of the author and not necessarily the views of the ABA Journal—or the American Bar Association.

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Kirkland partner can’t present argument or…

Trials & Litigation

Kirkland partner can’t present argument or evidence because he ‘crossed the lines’ of court orders, judge says

By Debra Cassens Weiss

October 31, 2024, 8:45 am CDT

A Missouri judge has sanctioned a Kirkland & Ellis partner after finding the lawyer “acted in bad faith on several occasions” and tried to inflame the jury during a civil trial targeting the makers of baby formula.

As a sanction, Kirkland partner James F. Hurst can’t argue about or object to evidence, and he can’t question witnesses, said Judge Michael Noble of the 22nd Judicial Circuit Court of Missouri in an Oct. 24 order.

Law.com and Bloomberg Law have coverage.

Noble said it appeared that Hurst was trying to elicit a mistrial when he “either attempted to violate or overtly crossed the lines of the court’s orders related to evidence and arguments before the jury.” In one recent direct examination, Noble said, Hurst “specifically admitted on the record to eliciting testimony and introducing evidence to intentionally inflame and prejudice the jury” in a manner banned by the court.

Hurst is defending Abbott Laboratories in a lawsuit filed by plaintiff Elizabeth Whitfield, who alleges that her baby developed an intestinal illness called necrotizing enterocolitis and suffered brain damage from drinking formula made by Abbott Laboratories. A second formula company, Mead Johnson, and the St. Louis Children’s Hospital are also defendants.

Whitfield’s lawyer, Tim Cronin, has argued that the makers of the formula didn’t disclose the full risk that their product poses for premature babies, according to past coverage by Reuters. Hurst has argued that the formula doesn’t cause necrotizing enterocolitis but that a mother’s breast milk protects against the illness.

Nearly a thousand cases similar to Whitfield’s suit are pending, according to Reuters. One case resulted in a $495 million verdict against Abbott Laboratories. In another, Mead Johnson was found liable for $60 million.

Bloomberg Law described Hurst as “a star litigator,” while Law.com said he is regularly featured in the Litigation Daily’s Litigators of the Week column.

A Kirkland spokesperson told Law.com and Bloomberg Law that Hurst is “a world-class trial lawyer” who “has successfully led cases for 30 years in jurisdictions around the country with supreme professionalism. His impeccable trial record speaks for itself.”

An Abbott Laboratories spokesperson told Law.com and Bloomberg Law that Hurst “is a terrific trial lawyer and has acted professionally, ethically and in good faith throughout the case.”

An argument about a bottle of hot sauce in Colorado elicited a fiery and ultimately fatal rage over the weekend that left one man dead and another behind bars, police in the Mile High State say.

George Vigil, 19, stands accused of one count of murder in the second degree, the Denver Police Department said in a relatively sparse press release issued on Monday afternoon.

Several aspects of the case are shrouded in mystery, but, in the end, someone the defendant knows was stabbed to death, according to an affidavit of probable cause obtained by Law&Crime.

A 38-year-old heir to one of the largest sugar-producing companies in the country was arrested this week for allegedly beating a woman in a fit of rage brought on because they had been seated next to a gay couple at a trendy steakhouse in Florida.

Alexander N. Fanjul was taken into custody on Monday and charged with a spate of crimes, including one count each of domestic battery by strangulation, robbery, and false imprisonment of an adult, court records obtained by Law&Crime show.

Fanjul’s family owns and operates subsidiary companies such as Florida Crystals, Domino Sugar, and American Sugar Refining.

According to a probable cause affidavit, Palm Beach police responded at about 11:30 p.m. on Sunday to a noise complaint at a home in the 200 block of El Dorado Lane. The caller reported hearing a woman screaming at the address.

First responders said they opened the gate to the property and “observed a male subject, later identified as Alexander N. Fanjul, standing over a female subject” who was “on the floor in a defensive ‘fetal’ position and observed to be bleeding from the facial area.”

After separating the two, the victim, who said she had been dating Fanjul for about a year and a half, told police Fanjul assaulted her and she thought she was going to die.

The attack allegedly took place after the two had gone out to dinner at the Flagler Steakhouse in Palm Beach, Florida.

“While at dinner, Fanjul initially became irate because the two were seated next to a homosexual couple at the restaurant,” the victim said, according to the affidavit. “Fanjul voiced his frustration to (the victim) at the restaurant, becoming increasingly irate. (The victim) further stated that when the two arrived at Fanjul’s residence, Fanjul became increasingly irate and continued to speak about his frustration with the restaurant.”

1. Home
2. Daily News
3. Taking ‘legal long shot,’ Trump’s lawyers…

Constitutional Law

Taking ‘legal long shot,’ Trump’s lawyers point to impeachment judgment clause in immunity argument

By Debra Cassens Weiss

January 2, 2024, 2:16 pm CST

Lawyers for former President Donald Trump are taking their immunity argument to a federal appeals court after the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 22 rejected a request by special counsel Jack Smith to grant certiorari before judgment to quickly decide the issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit will hear arguments in the case next week, the New York Times reports. At issue is whether Trump is immune from Smith’s election-interference prosecution because it is based on actions that Trump took while in office.

Part of the lawyers’ argument focuses on the impeachment judgment clause, which says impeached parties who are convicted in the U.S. Senate can still be criminally prosecuted, according to the New York Times.

The impeachment judgment clause reads: “Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States. But the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”

Trump was acquitted in his Senate impeachment trial for allegedly inciting the Jan. 6, 2021, U.S. Capitol riot.

In a “legal long shot” argument, Trump’s lawyers contend that the clause “presupposes that a president who is not convicted may not be subject to criminal prosecution,” the New York Times says.

In a “slightly narrower but still audacious argument,” the lawyers argue that a president who is acquitted by the Senate can’t be prosecuted for the acquitted conduct, the New York Times reports.

Smith argued in his brief that the impeachment judgment clause constrains sanctions available to Congress but places no limits on post-impeachment criminal prosecution.

An acquittal in an impeachment trial isn’t necessarily based on a factual conclusion that the impeached party did not commit impeachment offenses, Smith said. He pointed to statements by at least 31 of the 43 senators who voted to acquit Trump that their vote was at least partly due to the fact that Trump was already out of office, and they didn’t think that there was jurisdiction for the trial.

U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan of Washington, D.C., had ruled against Trump on the immunity issue Dec. 1.

“Nothing in the impeachment judgment clause prevents criminal prosecution thereafter,” she wrote.

How Appealing linked to the brief for Trump and additional coverage, while the National Law Journal covered the Supreme Court’s rejection of Smith’s petition for certiorari before judgment.

See also:

“Federal appeals court narrows federal judge’s gag order in Trump election-interference case”

“As 1 judge temporarily lifts Trump gag order, another says he’s ‘way beyond’ warning stage”

“Trump’s election-subversion co-conspirators included DOJ official, 4 other lawyers, indictment says”