Law Commons^™

An Outsider's View Of Common Law Evidence, Roger C. Park

Michigan Law Review

same line by a Newton. There have been improvements since Bentham's jeremiad. But Anglo-American evidence law is still puzzling. It rejects the common-sense principle of free proof in favor of a grotesque jumble of technicalities. It has the breathtaking aspiration of regulating inference by rule, causing it to exalt the foresight of remote rulemakers over the wisdom of on-the-spot adjudicators. It departs from tried-and-true practices of rational inquiry, as when it prohibits courts from using categories of evidence that are freely used both in everyday life and in the highest affairs of state. Sometimes it seems to fear dim light …

Thinking Clearly About Guilt, Juries, And Jeopardy, Stanton D. Krauss

Indiana Law Journal

No abstract provided.

Strong Criticism Of The American System Of Trial By Jury, Yale Kamisar

Articles

I grieve for my country to say that the administration of the criminal law in all the states in the Union (there may be one or two exceptions) is a disgrace to our civilization.

Improving Communications In The Courtroom Symposium (Welcoming Remarks And Statement Of The Issues), Newton N. Minow, Peter David Blanck

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: Improving Communications in the Courtroom

Judge-Jury Communications: Improving Communications And Understanding Bias, Ladoris Hazzard Cordell, Robert Rosenthal, Charles F.C. Ruff, Steven J. Adler

Indiana Law Journal

Symposium: Improving Communications in the Courtroom

Settling For A Judge: A Comment On Clermont And Eisenberg, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Trial by Jury or Judge: Transcending Empiricism,1 by Kevin Clermont and Theodore Eisenberg, is not only an important article, it is unique. To most Americans, trial means trial by jury. In fact, over half of all federal trials are conducted without juries2 (including 31% of trials in cases in which the parties have the right to choose a jury3), and the proportion of bench trials in state courts is even higher.4 And yet, while there is a large literature on the outcomes of jury trials and the factors that affect them,5 nobody else has systematically compared trials by jury to …

Judicial Misconduct During Jury Deliberations, Bennett L. Gershman

Elisabeth Haub School of Law Faculty Publications

The author considers the two principal types of improper judicial behavior that may occur during the jury deliberation process. Judicial conduct that attempts to place undue pressure on a jury to reach a verdict may include verdict-urging instructions, threats and intimidation, and inquiry into the numerical division of the jury on the merits of the verdict. Judicial participation in private, ex parte communications with jurors may also subvert orderly trial procedure and undermine the impartiality of the jury. Neither kind of judicial conduct may be allowed to compel a verdict from a jury.

Judicial Notice: An Essay Concerning Human Misunderstanding, E. F. Roberts

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Articles limning the law pertaining to judicial notice are legion, and the footnotes which have been cite checked by generations of law review editors must number in the thousands. These articles assume that reason, properly employed, produces correct answers. They assume that disagreements can be resolved by reason, because it is self-evident that any problem, once identified, can be solved. Reflected here are the presuppositions of lawyers brought up in the Western legal tradition.

What if one were to doubt that reason necessarily governed the behavior of lawyers? What if one doubted as well that all problems were susceptible to …

Improving Jury Deliberations: A Reconsideration Of Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael D. Craig

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note approves of efforts to avoid hung juries by giving lesser included offense instructions but opposes those instructions that restrict juror decisions and coerce minority jurors. Rather, this Note offers a lesser included offense instruction that promotes flexibility and jury compromise without undermining the deliberative process. Part I describes the problem of hung juries and how courts have tried to prevent them with restrictive lesser included offense instructions. Part II analyzes the coercive impact of restrictive lesser included offense instructions and concludes that an instruction conditioning deliberations upon individual juror disagreement better promotes compromises on the merits while reducing …

Habeas Corpus Review Of State Trial Court Failure To Give Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael H. Hoffheimer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note advocates that federal courts review state criminal convictions in habeas corpus proceedings when lesser included offense instructions are available under state law but were not given. Part I demonstrates that granting such review conforms to the modern jurisdictional scope of federal collateral review because failure to give the instructions undermines the fact-finding function of juries and is therefore unconstitutional. Part II analyzes the proper standard of review and determines that the federal interest in protecting the reliability of the fact-finding process should prevail over any conflicting state interest in refusing to give lesser included offense instructions. Part II …

Some Hints On Defects In The Jury System, James V. Campbell

Articles

The occasional freaks of juries have now and then led some members of the bar to speculate on the policy of doing without them entirely, and some persons no doubt think that they have strong convictions that the jury system has become useless. It is safe to say that these extreme views are altogether speculative, and not based on any careful comparison of results. Most persons who have looked into their own experience with courts and juries are ready to agree that where there is no dispute about main facts, so that the chief dispute is one of law, there …