Law Commons^™

Technology-Augmented Courtrooms: Progress Amid A Few Complications, Or The Problematic Interrelationship Between Court And Counsel, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

The Courtroom 21 Project: Creating The Courtroom Of The Twenty-First Century, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Technology Augmented Litigation--Systemic Revolution, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

This article reviews key aspects of high technology litigation, including technology augmented court records, two-way video arraignment and testimony, and technology based evidence display, and posits some of the critical jurisprudential and pragmatic issues posed by the use of such technologies

Revolution In Courtroom Technology Presents Opportunity And Risk, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Some Thoughts On The Evidentiary Aspects Of Technologically Produced Or Presented Evidence, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Introduction: What Have We Wrought?, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Improving Access To Justice Via Technology, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Courtroom Technology, A Judicial Primer, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Courtroom Technology: For Trial Lawyers The Future Is Now, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Courtroom Technology In The 21st Century, Fredric I. Lederer

Fredric I. Lederer

No abstract provided.

Against Methodological Stare Decisis, Evan J. Criddle, Glen Staszewski

Evan J. Criddle

Should federal courts give stare decisis effect to statutory interpretation methodology? Although a growing number of legal scholars have answered this question in the affirmative, this Essay makes the case against methodological stare decisis. Drawing on recent empirical studies of Congress’s expectations regarding statutory interpretation, we show that existing knowledge of Congress’s expectations is insufficient to settle on one consistent approach to statutory interpretation. Moreover, Congress has almost certainly changed its expectations over time, and this raises serious problems for methodological stare decisis from the perspective of faithful-agency theories. We argue further that many theories and doctrines of statutory interpretation …

Grave Crimes And Weak Evidence: Fact-Finding Evolution In International Criminal Law, Nancy Amoury Combs

Nancy Combs

International criminal courts carry out some of the most important work that a legal system can conduct: prosecuting those who have visited death and destruction on millions. Despite the significance of their work--or perhaps because of it--international courts face tremendous challenges. Chief among them is accurate fact-finding. With alarming regularity, international criminal trials feature inconsistent, vague, and sometimes false testimony that renders judges unable to assess with any measure of certainty who did what to whom in the context of a mass atrocity. This Article provides the first-ever empirical study quantifying fact-finding in an international criminal court. The study shines …

Book Review Of Fraudulent Evidence Before Public International Tribunals: The Dirty Stories Of International Law, Nancy Amoury Combs

Nancy Combs

No abstract provided.

Circumventing Congress: How The Federal Courts Opened The Door To Impeaching Criminal Defendants With Prior Convictions, Jeffrey Bellin

Jeffrey Bellin

This Article spotlights the flawed analytical framework at the heart of the federal courts’ approach to one of the most controversial trial practices in American criminal jurisprudence — the admission of prior convictions to impeach the credibility of defendants who testify. As the Article explains, the flawed approach is a byproduct of the courts’ reliance on a five-factor analytical framework to implement the governing legal standard enacted by Congress in Federal Rule of Evidence 609. Tracing the evolution of the fivefactor framework from its roots in pre-Rule 609 case law, the Article demonstrates that the courts’ reinterpretation of the framework …

The Democracy-Forcing Constitution, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Dicta, Schmicta: Theory Versus Practice In Lower Court Decision Making, David Klein, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

The distinction between dictum and holding is at once central to the American legal system and largely irrelevant. In the first systematic empirical study of lower court invocations of the distinction, we show that lower courts hardly ever refuse to follow a statement from a higher court because it is dictum. Specifically, federal courts of appeals meaningfully invoke the distinction in about 1 in 4000 cases; federal district courts in about 1 in 2000 cases; and state courts in about 1 in 4000 cases. In this Essay, we report these findings, describe our coding system, and offer a preliminary assessment …

Do Judicial Elections Facilitate Popular Constitutionalism; Can They?, Nicole Mansker, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Constitutional Avoidance And The Roberts Court, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Congress And The Making Of The Second Rehnquist Court, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of The Second American Revolution, Neal Devins

Neal E. Devins

No abstract provided.

Book Review Of Clement Haynsworth, The Senate, And The Supreme Court, Davison M. Douglas

Davison M. Douglas

No abstract provided.

When Is Finality Final? Second Chances At The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

The Supreme Court’S Controversial Gvrs – And An Alternative, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article addresses a relatively neglected portion of the Supreme Court's docket: the "GVR"-that is, the Court's procedure for summarily granting certiorari, vacating the decision below without finding error, and remanding the case for further consideration by the lower court. The purpose of the GVR device is to give the lower court the initial opportunity to consider the possible impact of a new development (such as a recently issued Supreme Court decision) and, if necessary, to revise its ruling in light of the changed circumstances. The Court may issue scores or even hundreds of these orders every year

This Article …

Statutory Interpretation And The Rest Of The Iceberg: Divergences Between The Lower Federal Courts And The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article examines the methods of statutory interpretation used by the lower federal courts, especially the federal district courts, and compares those methods to the practices of the U.S. Supreme Court. This novel research reveals both similarities across courts and some striking differences. The research shows that some interpretive tools are highly overrepresented in the Supreme Court’s decisions, while other tools are much more prevalent in the lower courts. Differences in prevalence persist even after accounting for the selection effect that stems from the Supreme Court’s discretionary docket. Another finding—based on a study of 40 years of cases from all …

Precedent, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

Separating Amicus Wheat From Chaff, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl, Adam Feldman

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.

One Good Plaintiff Is Not Enough, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

This Article concerns an aspect of Article III standing that has played a role in many of the highest-profile controversies of recent years, including litigation over the Affordable Care Act, immigration policy, and climate change. Although the federal courts constantly emphasize the importance of ensuring that only proper plaintiffs invoke the federal judicial power, the Supreme Court and other federal courts have developed a significant exception to the usual requirement of standing. This exception holds that a court entertaining a multiple-plaintiff case may dispense with inquiring into the standing of each plaintiff as long as the court finds that one …

Measuring Circuit Splits: A Cautionary Note, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

A number of researchers have recently published new measures of the Supreme Court’s behavior in resolving conflicts in the lower courts. These new measures represent an improvement over prior, cruder approaches, but it turns out that measuring the Court’s resolutions of conflicts is surprisingly difficult. The aim of this methodological comment is to describe those difficulties and to establish several conclusions that follow from them. First, the new measures of the Court’s behavior are certainly imprecise and may reflect biased samples. Second, using the Supreme Court Database, which some studies rely on to assemble a dataset of cases resolving conflicts, …

Hierarchy And Heterogeneity: How To Read A Statute In A Lower Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Is statutory interpretation an activity that all courts should perform the same way? Courts and commentators implicitly so conclude. I believe that conclusion is wrong. Statutory interpretation is a court-specific activity that should differ according to the institutional circumstances of the interpreting court. The U.S. Supreme Court is not the model all other courts should emulate.

I identify three kinds of institutional differences between courts that bear on which interpretive methods are appropriate: (1) the court’s place in the hierarchical structure of appellate review, (2) the court’s technical capacity and resources, and (3) the court’s democratic pedigree, particularly as reflected …

Deciding When To Decide - Appellate Procedure And Legal Change, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

No abstract provided.