A lot of lawyers (to their client’s peril) underestimate the problem with unfocused briefs. The issue was highlighted in a recent post by Orin Kerr in The Volokh Conspiracy
From the introduction to United States v. Bansal, a recent Third Circuit decision authored by Judge Aldisert:
We note at the outset that Bansal’s and Mullinix’s briefs raise approximately 75 issues for our consideration. Although the government responds by calling to our attention no fewer than 339 cases drawn from the span of more than 120 years (as well as 49 separate statutes and one book, for good measure), we reject any implication that we should pick up their torch and embark upon a similar adventure ourselves. We address only those issues we deem worthy of discussion, and only to the extent we deem necessary to explain our reasoning.
With that said, Judge Aldisert’s opinion is still 69 pages long
blog.amjudges.org 
Here is what the 9th Circuit said in Miller v. Keeney, 882 F. 2d 1428, 1434 (1989):
“Appellate counsel will fail to raise an issue because she foresees little or no likelihood of success . . . The weeding out of weaker issues is widely recognized as one of the hallmarks of effective appellate advocacy.” and where the client’s interests call for selectivity and counsel’s call for self protection by raising “every conceivable issue,” “We must rely on the professionalism of appellate counsel to resolve such conflicts in favor of the client.”
LikeLike