Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall—Biased Impartiality, Appearances, And The Need For Recusal Reform, Zygmont A. Pines
Mirror, Mirror, On The Wall—Biased Impartiality, Appearances, And The Need For Recusal Reform, Zygmont A. Pines
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The article focuses on a troubling aspect of contemporary judicial morality.
Impartiality—and the appearance of impartiality—are the foundation of judicial decision-making, judicial morality, and the public’s trust in the rule of law. Recusal, in which a jurist voluntarily removes himself or herself from participating in a case, is a process that attempts to preserve and promote the substance and the appearance of judicial impartiality. Nevertheless, the traditional common law recusal process, prevalent in many of our state court systems, manifestly subverts basic legal and ethical norms.
Today’s recusal practice—whether rooted in unintentional hypocrisy, wishful thinking, or a pathological cognitive dissonance— …
Four Models Of Jury Democracy, Jeffrey Abramson
Four Models Of Jury Democracy, Jeffrey Abramson
Chicago-Kent Law Review
This article proposes a theory of “representative deliberation” to describe the democratic ideal that jurors seek to practice. Given its long history, the jury does not fit neatly into any one of the most familiar types of democracy, such as direct democracy, representative democracy, or deliberative democracy. However, the jury does hold together elements of all of these theories. In line with direct democracy, we select jurors from the people-at-large. In line with representative democracy, we seek to draw jurors from a representative cross-section of the community. In line with deliberative democracy, jurors talk as well as vote and seek …
Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano
Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano
Michigan Law Review
The special verdict is plagued by two philosophical paradoxes: the discursive dilemma and the lottery paradox. Although widely discussed in the philosophical literature, these paradoxes have never been applied to jury decision making. In this Essay, I use the paradoxes to show that the special verdict’s vote-reporting procedures can lead judges to render verdicts that the jurors themselves would reject. This outcome constitutes a systemic breakdown that should not be tolerated in a legal system that prides itself on the fairness of its jury decision-making process. Ultimately, I argue that, because the general verdict with answers to written questions does …
A Feminist Approach To Social Scientific Evidence: Foundations, Andrew E. Taslitz
A Feminist Approach To Social Scientific Evidence: Foundations, Andrew E. Taslitz
Michigan Journal of Gender & Law
This Article addresses several aspects of a feminist approach to social scientific evidence, specifically, the interpretive nature of mental states, the feminist attitude toward juries, and the political nature of evidence law.
Rethinking Guild, Juries, And Jeopardy, George C. Thomas Iii, Barry S. Pollack
Rethinking Guild, Juries, And Jeopardy, George C. Thomas Iii, Barry S. Pollack
Michigan Law Review
We have attempted in this article to "begin over again and concentrate" by taking a fresh look at the interplay between guilt and jury verdicts. Somewhat to our surprise, we discovered that guilt is undefinable without reference to the larger society. We also discovered that our risk-of-error experiments implicated the principle of double jeopardy. When we began this thought experiment, we intended only to test the risk of error in various jury configurations and verdicts. We ended, however, by articulating a more fundamental principle: guilt is nothing more, and nothing less, than the judgment of society. Any verdict that accurately …
Faces On The Court House Steps, A. F. Neumann
Faces On The Court House Steps, A. F. Neumann
Michigan Law Review
Judge Frank may one day write a book which it will be possible to take or leave, but I doubt it. Few writers, with his ability and insight in the field of administration of justice, I suppose, succeed in evoking in their readers the spirited reactions that his writings produce. This is the highest praise that any reader can bestow-even though his reaction be a spirited disagreement.
In his most recent book, Courts on Trial, he has attempted to· destroy what he calls "myths" in legal thinking describing the fact-finding process just as he did for the rule determination …