The following excerpt is from United States v. Hernandez-Meza, D.C. No. 3:11-cr-05481- MMA-1, No. 12-50220 (9th Cir. 2013):
But defense counsel had raised a legitimate issue and was entitled to a ruling from the district court. Giving an explanation for significant rulings is an important component of due process. It lets the adversely affected party know that the judge has heard and understood its argument, and that the judge's ruling is based on the facts and the law. An explanation also allows the judge to confirm that his ruling is correct. If he is unable to articulate a plausible rationale for his ruling, he may think better of it. Finally, and not least, by failing to give any indication that he applied the correct legal standard, the district judge made appellate review difficult. See Hinkson, 585 F.3d at 1261-62; cf. United States v. Taylor, 487 U.S. 326, 336-37 (1988) ("[A] district court must . . . clearly articulate [its reasoning] in order to permit meaningful appellate review.").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.