Here’s a nice selection from Judge Ferdinand Fernandez’s collection. (Judge Fernandez is a Bush I appointee, whom I had not known of before noticing this selection.)

We do have to give deference to counsel’s choices and determinations, but our ultimate decision will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case before us. In the constellation of refusals to have mitigating evidence presented, however, this case is surely a bright star. No other case could illuminate the state of the client’s mind and the nature of counsel’s dilemma quite as brightly as this one. No flashes of insight could be more fulgurous than those which this record supplies. Landrigan was not willing to merely express his opinions to counsel and, once having given those indications about his feelings, recede into comparative silence as counsel went about the business of conducting the proceeding. Quite the contrary; Landrigan took an actively aggressive posture, which ensured that counsel’s attempts to place mitigating factors before the sentencing court would come a cropper. Each of counsel’s feints in the mitigation direction brought a statement from Landrigan that painted an even bleaker picture and made matters even worse.

Landrigan v. Stewart, 272 F.3d 1221 (9th Cir. 2001). Fulgurous comes from the Latin fulgur for lightning, and accordingly means characteristic of or resembling lightning. I also note the phrase “come a cropper” is an idiomatic expression meaning to fail (or to fall from a horse). Finally, for those legal beagles out there, I note that the Ninth Circuit vacated this opinion, reheard it en banc, and reversed in part. The Supreme Court then reversed the en banc panel, and following the mandate the Ninth Circuit vacated its en banc opinion.

For a description of a fulgurous field, see the post below.