Law Commons^™

Excluding Exclusion: How Herring Jeopardizes The Fourth Amendment's Protections Against Unreasonable Search And Seizure, Hariqbal Basi

Hariqbal Basi

Abstract- For nearly a half-century, the exclusionary rule has remained an important mechanism for ensuring police compliance with the Fourth Amendment and deterring unconstitutional searches and seizures. In January 2009, the Supreme Court held in Herring v. United States that the exclusionary rule does not apply to good faith negligent police behavior. This significantly broadened the law, and severely limits the future application of the exclusionary rule. Furthermore, this holding has strong potential for abuse by police departments. By analogizing to Fifth Amendment jurisprudence and Miranda rights, I argue that the ruling in Herring needs to be limited in order …

What Do We Mean By An Independent Judiciary, Michael P. Seng

Michael P. Seng

Judicial independence has roots in separation of powers and in ethical standards that require judges to be competent and impartial. Judicial independence depends upon society having faith in the integrity of the courts. Accountability is thus the handmaid of an independent judiciary. This article defines both the structure and the ethical standards that insure an independent judiciary.

An Empirical Study Of Settlement Conference Nuts And Bolts: Settlement Judges Facilitating Communication, Compromise And Fear, Peter R. Robinson

Peter R. Robinson

No abstract provided.

Juristocracy In The Trenches: Problem-Solving Judges And The Therapeutic Jurisprudence In Drug Treatment Courts And Unified Family Courts, Richard C. Boldt, Jana B. Singer

Richard C. Boldt

This article explores the role of judges on two types of “problem-solving courts”: drug treatment courts and unified family courts. It compares the behavior these “problem-solving” judges to more traditional models of judicial behavior and to activist judging at the appellate level. The authors conclude that the judges who serve on these problem-solving courts have largely repudiated the classical judicial virtues of restraint, disinterest and modesty in favor of a more activist and therapeutic stance. However, the causes and consequences of this role-shift are complex. In particular, the authors suggest that the proliferation of problem solving courts and judges is …

Judicial Independence In Light Of The Basic Principles On The Independence Of The Judiciary: Who Has The Right Idea?, Ubaid Ul-Haq

Ubaid ul-Haq

Judicial independence is a crucial component inherent in the proper and effective administration of any government. Critical to this doctrine is the larger requirement of a separation of powers, which must be established before attempting to affect any concept of judicial independence. Judicial independence essentially represents a judiciary’s ability to render decisions free of improper influences, both internal and external. The United Nations has set forth a minimum standard of judicial independence with which States should seek to comply in order to protect civil liberties and in a greater sense, human rights. Evaluating the jurisdictions of Canada, Jamaica, and the …

Live Hearings And Paper Trials, Mark Spottswood

Mark Spottswood

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing or trial, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing live testimony than if the judges were to review …

Constitutional Pathology, The War On Terror, And United States V. Klein, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

In The Irrepressible Myth of Klein (UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI LAW REVIEW, 2010) I discuss the meaning, scope, and continued relevance of the Supreme Court's historic decision in United States v. Klein (1871), arguing that Klein is not the judicially powerful a precedent many believe it to be. In this follow-up essay, I apply the insights of my analysis and exposure of Klein’s myths to two major pieces of legislation enacted as part of the ongoing War on Terror: The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 (granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies involved in warrantless domestic surveillance) and the Military Commissions Act …

White Male Heterosexist Norms In The Confirmation Process, Theresa M. Beiner

Theresa M. Beiner

Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing took a controversial turn when commentators picked up on a reference in the New York Times to a portion of a speech she gave in 2001. In that speech, then Judge Sotomayor opined that, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” That statement, along with her participation in the per curiam decision in Ricci v. DeStefano, caused a minor storm during her confirmation. More recently, former Harvard Dean and former …

Are Arbitrators Above The Law? The "Manifest Disregard Of The Law" Standard, Michael Leroy

Michael H LeRoy

Arbitration is supposed to be final and binding. But federal and state laws, and judicial doctrines, allow courts to vacate arbitrator awards. This study contemplates the role of courts when they review awards that “manifestly disregard the law”— a term that means the arbitrator knew the law but chose to ignore it. Given the norm of arbitral finality, should courts vacate these rulings?

Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576 (2008), failed to answer this question. The parties asked a court to review their award for errors of law. This standard is not in the Federal Arbitration Act …

The Partisan Dimensions Of Federal Preemption In The United States Courts Of Appeals, Bradley Joondeph

Bradley W. Joondeph

This paper explores some of these empirical uncertainties surrounding the political dimensions of preemption in the federal courts. More concretely, it presents a statistical study of every preemption decision rendered by the United States Courts of Appeals from January 1, 2005, to December 31, 2009, a total of 560 decisions and just over 1,700 judicial votes. And these data tell a story consisting of two distinct parts. The first part is that preemption disputes seem to produce a large measure of judicial consensus. In the full universe of cases, there is only a slight difference between Republican and Democratic appointees: …

If You Speak Up, Must You Stand Down: The Limits Of Caperton, Richard M. Esenberg

Richard M Esenberg

In Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Company, the United States Supreme Court announced a broad duty of judges to recuse themselves when they have an interest in connection with a case that creates an “unconstitutional potential for bias.” This potential may exist when “under a realistic appraisal of psychological tendencies and human weakness,” a judge may be unable to “hold the balance nice, clear and true.” In Caperton itself, a state supreme court justice was held to have a duty to recuse himself from a case involving a company whose CEO had spent approximately three million dollars in support of …

Public Funding Of Judicial Campaigns: The North Carolina Experience, Paul D. Carrington

Paul D. Carrington

This addresses the constitutional crises created in numerous states by Supreme Court decisions bearing on campaign finance and professional ethics of judges. North Carolina was the first state to employ public financing of judicial campaigns. This is an account of how that came to be and an evaluation of the North Carolina experience that may be especially instructive to those states that have recently enacted similar laws, most recently Wisconsin and West Virginia.

Hearings, Mark Spottswood

Mark Spottswood

This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …

The Irrepressible Myth Of Klein, Howard M. Wasserman

Howard M Wasserman

The Reconstruction-era case of United States v. Klein remains the object of a “cult” among commentators and advocates, who see it as a powerful separation of powers precedent. In fact, Klein is a myth—actually two related myths. One is that it is opaque and meaninglessly indeterminate because, given its confusing and disjointed language, its precise doctrinal contours are indecipherable; the other is that Klein is vigorous precedent, likely to be used by a court to invalidate likely federal legislation. Close analysis of Klein, its progeny, and past scholarship uncovers three identifiable core limitations on congressional control over the workings of …

Neuroimaging And Competency To Be Executed After Panetti, Michael L. Perlin

Michael L Perlin

Scholars have begun to consider the impact of neuroimaging evidence on capital punishment trials, questioning whether reliance on such testimony can actually make “sentencing more rational and humane.” They have also considered the impact of this evidence on criminal sentencing, expressing concern that such evidence will be improperly used “as predictive factors to increase sentences,” and counseling policymakers to “avoid misuse of new techniques.” In an earlier article on neuroimaging and criminal procedure, I considered the questions of a criminal defendant’s competency to submit to neuroimaging testing, and the impact of antipsychotic medications on the results of such testing.

What …

Legislative Rules, Nonlegislative Rules, And The Perils Of The Short Cut, David L. Franklin

David L. Franklin

Courts have long struggled to distinguish legislative rules, which are designed to have binding legal effect and must go through the rulemaking procedure known as notice and comment, from nonlegislative rules, which are not meant to have binding legal effect and are exempted from notice and comment. The distinction has been called “tenuous,” “baffling,” and “enshrouded in considerable smog.”

What is just as baffling is that prominent commentators such as John Manning, Peter Strauss, William Funk and Donald Elliot have proposed a simple solution to the problem—and courts have failed to take them up on it. Rather than inquiring into …

Distorting Legal Principles, Steven L. Schwarcz

Steven L Schwarcz

This article explores the important but until now largely neglected problem of distorting legal principles. Although legal principles enable society to order itself by preserving broadly based expectations, parties sometimes transact in ways that are so inconsistent with accepted principles as to create uncertainty or confusion that undermines the basis for reasoning afforded by the principles. The article starts by examining a fundamental distortion of the nemo dat legal principle (one cannot give what one does not have), which was a trigger of Lehman Brothers’ recent downfall. A practice called “rehypothecation” so distorted nemo dat that Lehman’s customers were uncertain …

Cultural Cognition At Work, Paul Secunda

Paul M. Secunda

Cultural cognition theory provides an anthropological and psychological-based theory about how values actually influence judicial decisionmaking. It suggests that values act as a subconscious influence on cognition rather than as a self-conscious motive of decision-making.

Applying these insights to two controversial United States Supreme Court labor and employment decisions, this Article contends that judges in many instances are not fighting over ideology, but rather over legally-consequential facts. This type of disagreement is particularly prevalent in labor and employment law cases where the factual issues that divide judges involve significant uncertainty and turn on inconclusive evidence.

This distinction between ideology and …

Patent Law And The Two Cultures, Peter Lee

Peter Lee

A half century ago, author and physicist C.P. Snow warned of a “gulf of mutual incomprehension” between the liberal arts and sciences. Snow’s “Two Cultures” thesis is particularly relevant to patent law, a realm where law and science intersect. Drawing on Snow’s framework, this Article addresses challenges that arise when lay judges must engage, understand, and ultimately pass judgment on complex technologies. It first argues that technological subject matter imposes significant cognitive burdens on generalist judges. It then explores the “cognitive miser” model whereby lay persons adopt heuristics and defer to expertise to limit their engagement with technology. Drawing from …

An Originalist Theory Of Precedent: The Privileged Place Of Originalist Precedent, Lee Strang

Lee J Strang

In this Article, I show that originalism retains a robust role for originalist precedent thereby enabling originalism to fit our legal practice and appropriate the normative attractiveness of stare decisis. This Article therefore fills a prominent gap in originalist theory.

First, I briefly review the debate in originalism over the role of constitutional precedent.

Second, I describe how participants in our legal practice can distinguish between originalist and nonoriginalist precedent using a standard called Originalism in Good Faith. Under Originalism in Good Faith, precedents that are a good faith attempt to articulate and apply the Constitution’s original meaning, are originalist …

Public Confidence And Judicial Campaigns, Michael R. Dimino

Michael R Dimino

Denying Choice Of Forum: An Interference By The Massachusetts Trial Court With Domestic Violence Victims' Rights, Margaret B. Drew, Marilu E. Gresens

Margaret B Drew

The article discusses the due process denials inherent in the Massachusetts scheme designed to defeat the victim's choice of forum for hearing on a civil protection order petition. The scheme would divert many protection orders to family court even though the statute in question permits filing and hearing of the petitions in district, superior and famiy courts. The diversion would be available whenever there is a related case filed in family court at the time that the petition for protection is filed. More alarmingly, the petition could be diverted to family court if a subsequent action was filed in the …

Balancing The Rights Of The Public With The Jurors' Right To Privacy During The Jury Selection Process, Stephen A. Gerst

Stephen A Gerst

It is rare for a trial judge hearing a criminal case to receive a motion to intervene filed by third parties not named in the proceedings. In the jury selection process of cases involving high profile defendants, however, the public - including the press - has a heightened interest in the proceedings. At the same time, the trial judge may have a heightened interest in the protection of juror privacy. This article discusses the issue of when and under what circumstances a trial court may close proceedings to the public during the jury selection process and seal the written responses …

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie

Richard E. Redding

Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called …

Pro-Prosecution Judges: "Tough On Crime," Soft On Strategy, Ripe For Disqualification, Keith Swisher

Keith Swisher

In this Article, I take the most extensive look to date at pro-prosecution judges and ultimately advance the following, slightly scandalous claim: Particularly in our post-Caperton, political-realist world, “tough on crime” elective judges should recuse themselves from all criminal cases. The contextual parts to this claim are, in the main, a threefold description: (i) the "groundbreaking" Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal decision, its predecessors, and its progeny; (ii) the judicial ethics of disqualification; and (iii) empirical and anecdotal evidence of pro-prosecution (commonly called "tough on crime") campaigns and attendant electoral pressures. Building on this description and the work of empiricists, …

Judicial Decision Making About Forensic Mental Health Evidence, Richard E. Redding, Daniel C. Murrie

Richard E. Redding

Judges play a central role in decision making in the justice system. This chapter reviews the extant empirical research on judicial decision making in criminal, juvenile, and civil cases. We discuss judges’ decision making about forensic mental health evidence introduced in these cases, judicial receptivity to various kinds of evidence, and their understanding of clinical and scientific evidence as well as the ways they make rulings about such evidence. We focus on decision making at the trial court level, in those arenas that are most relevant to the forensic mental health practitioner (psychiatrist, psychologist, or social worker) who is called …