Type of brief | Page limit | Word limit |
Legality of death sentence, principal brief | 60 | 28,000 |
Legality of death sentence, reply brief | 30 | 14,000 |
Other cases, principal brief | 30 | 14,000 |
Other cases, reply brief | 15 | 7,000 |
Utah. R. App. P. 24
Advisory Committee Notes
The 2017 amendments substantially change the organization and content of briefs. An important objective of the amendments is to present the party's case in logical order, in measured increments, and without unnecessary repetition. The principal brief of each party must meet the same requirements.
Paragraph (a)(4). A party's principal brief should include an introduction. The author should focus the introduction on the important features of the case. The introduction to one case may be only a few sentences, while a more complex case may require a few paragraphs or perhaps a few pages. The objective of the introduction is to give the reader a sense of the forest before detailing the trees.
Paragraph (a)(6). The statement of the case should describe the facts surrounding the dispute and procedural history of the litigation, but only to the extent that these are necessary to understand the issues. Describing a fact or circumstance or proceeding that has no bearing on the issues adds words of no value and distracts the reader. When stating a fact or describing a proceeding, a concise narrative is sometimes a better presentation than a numbered, itemized list. The party must cite to the places in the record that support the statement.
Paragraph (a)(8). The 2017 amendments remove the reference to marshaling. State v. Nielsen, 2014 UT 10, 326 P.3d 645, holds that the failure to marshal is not a technical deficiency resulting in default, but is a manner in which an appellant may carry its burden of persuasion when challenging a finding or verdict.
Paragraph (a)(11). The certificate of compliance is expanded to include not only compliance with the limit on the length of the brief, but also compliance with the public/private record requirements of Rule 21. Briefs, including the addendum containing trial court records, are public documents, increasingly available on the Internet. However, many trial court records are not public. If the author needs to include a non-public document in an addendum or non-public information in the body of the brief, Rule 21 requires that an identical, public brief be filed, but with the non-public information removed.
Paragraph (b). The purpose of a reply brief is to respond to the facts and arguments presented in an appellee's principal brief, not to reiterate points already made in the appellant's principal brief, nor to introduce new matters that should have been raised in that brief. Although not required, it is good practice to identify the point that is being responded to.
Paragraph (d). Describing the actors in a dispute and litigation presents a challenge to the author of a brief. Consistency promotes clarity; having chosen a term, phrase, name, or initials to define a party, person, or entity, the author should use it throughout a brief.
The name of a minor is often a private record and caution should be used to avoid including other names or information from which a minor might be identified. A minor's surname should be used only with the informed consent of a mature minor. The author may file a private brief for the parties and the court using the minor's name while simultaneously filing an otherwise identical public brief with the minor's name omitted, redacted, reduced to initials, or substituted with a placeholder name. A minor may be referred to by a descriptive term such as "the child," "the 11-year old," or "the sister." The biological, adoptive, or foster parents of minors may be referred to by their relation to the minor, such as "mother," "adoptive parent," or "foster father."
While the name of an adult is usually a public record, the author should recognize the intrusion into the lives of victims, witnesses, and others who are not principals in the dispute caused by a brief published on the Internet. Also, the use of names is disfavored when clarity and discretion can be promoted by use of a reference based on the person's role in the dispute or the case. Parties and other persons and entities should generally be referred to by their role in the dispute, such as "employee," "Defendant Employer," or "the Taxpayer." Descriptions such as "witness" or "neighbor" can also be useful while respecting the interests of non-parties. The reference chosen should be the one most relevant to the matters on appeal.
Paragraph (g). Because of the increasing rarity of monospaced font, the 2017 amendments eliminated the number of lines as a measure of a brief's length. And to improve the clarity of Rule 24, the 2017 amendments moved the requirements for briefs in a cross-appeal to Rule 24A.