I recently posted about a successful appeal involving consecutive versus concurrent sentencing in a white-collar criminal case. The Sixth Circuit panel was Judges Clay, Rogers, and Ludington. Judge Rogers was particularly active, asking tough (but fair) questions of both sides. There was not always much room for me to respond, and I think this oral argument illustrates how to attempt to stick to your main points while conceding what you should concede when a judge is really pushing you. The panel ultimately ruled for my client in this opinion.
The funniest moment occurs at 22:50. The government lawyer was contending that there was no confusion about whether the sentencing judge misspoke and meant to say "concurrent" instead of "consecutive" and then the lawyer misspoke and mixed up those very terms.