introducing new case law into your oral argument?

[dubsy]

i have an oral argument to make this week.  it hasn't happened yet but i did a pretty crap job on my brief (it's a P/F class...), so what happens if i happen to find a new case that i didn't include in my brief but that would be helpfult o discuss at oral argument?  am i barred from bringing it up?

[modum03]

I know this reply is too late, but for others to see and comment on i'll post anyway.

I, too, had this same question (albeit I worked my *ss off on my brief) last spring. There's nothing stopping you from using any authority that you had not discussed in your brief. It might be helpful during your argument to acknowledge that such authority is not in your brief in order to give the court the opportunity to take special note. I find that the point of oral argument isn't to reiterate what the judges/justices can already read, but rather to converse with them as to why you have the better position. If pulling from other non-tabled sources helps you do that, go for it.

[john4040]

i have an oral argument to make this week.  it hasn't happened yet but i did a pretty crap job on my brief (it's a P/F class...), so what happens if i happen to find a new case that i didn't include in my brief but that would be helpfult o discuss at oral argument?  am i barred from bringing it up?

No, you're not barred at any stage of the game (TC or appeal) from mentioning an applicable case.  In fact, if you're still at the trial court level, you can even make arguments that weren't in your brief.  Once made (even in open court), it becomes part of the record and the issue is preserved for appeal. (Although the other party will probably ask for, and be granted, a chance to brief that issue after argument).