Law Commons^™

Chief Justice Mogoeng V Africa4palestine And Others [2021] Jsc/819/20; Jsc/825/20; And Jsc/ 826/20, Dunia P. Zongwe

SAIPAR Case Review

This is a judgment against the first judge among his peers: the Chief Justice. Handed down by the Judicial Conduct Committee (JCC) of South Africa’s Judicial Service Commission (JSC), this judgment involves the remarks made in 2020 by Chief Justice Mogoeng Mogoeng at a webinar hosted by a pro-Israel, conservative, Zionist newspaper. During that webinar, Mogoeng criticized the South African government’s official policy on the Israel-Palestine conflict. Following Mogoeng’s faux pas and a loud public outcry, three non-governmental organizations (NGOs) lodged complaints with the JCC against Mogoeng for his Israel comments.

This appeal judgment largely confirms the JCC’s earlier complaint …

Chief Justice Mumba Malila And The Challenges Ahead: An Editorial, O'Brien Kaaba, Kafumu Kalyalya

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited And Gregory Chifire Selected Judgment No. 47 Of 2018, Elliot Mfune

SAIPAR Case Review

The case of Savenda Management Services Limited v Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited and Gregory Chifire is significant in that it raises the question whether Zambian judges have virtually unbridled power to move on their own motion to punish for contempt of court any person who criticises their judgements. In addition, the case reinforces the traditional struggles associated with distinguishing civil from criminal contempt, the consequences of which are entirely based on the distinction. The case is also important as it exposes inadequate sentencing guidelines in Zambian contempt laws, the effect of which has led to excessive and unwarranted sentences. A …

Savenda Management Services Limited V Stanbic Bank Zambia Limited & Gregory Chifire (Alleged Contemnor) (Appeal No. 37/2017) [2018] Zmsc 11, Mwami Kabwabwa

SAIPAR Case Review

Adjudicators have a social responsibility. When the Judiciary/judges carry out their constitutional mandate of dispensing justice it is critical to bear in mind that judges carry a level of responsibility for the impact that their decisions have on society. For this reason, judges ought to be held responsible for every judgment they render either good or bad. Contempt is an exceedingly powerful instrument in the hands of the courts to tame the conduct and behaviour of lawyers and lay people who come into contact with judicial authority. Like any other power, the exercise of contempt power has to be checked. …

The Paradoxical Impact Of Scalia's Campaign Against Legislative History, Stuart Minor Benjamin, Kristen M. Renberg

Cornell Law Review

Beginning in 1985, Judge and then Justice Antonin Scalia advocated forcefully against the use of legislative history in statutory interpretation. Justice Scalia's position, in line with his textualism, was that legislative history was irrelevant and judges should avoid invoking it. Reactions to his attacks among Justices and prominent circuit judges had an ideological quality, with greater support from ideological conservatives. In this Article, we consider the role that political party and timing ofjudicial nomination played in circuit judges' use of legislative history. Specifically, we hypothesize that Republican circuit judges were more likely to respond to the attacks on legislative history …

Queer Eyes Don't Sympathize: An Empirical Investigation Of Lgb Identity And Judicial Decision Making, Jared Ham, Chan Tov Mcnarrara

Cornell Law Review

Do Lesbian, gay, and bisexual judicial decision makers differ from their heterosexual counterparts? Over the past decade much has been said about queer judges, with many suggesting that they cannot be impartial in cases involving LGBTQ+ parties or religious interests. To investigate these questions, this Note presents the findings of the first empirical analysis of the decision making of lesbian, gay, and bisexual judges in the United States.

Examining employment-discrimination litigation, this Note finds no evidence that a judge's sexual orientation affects the outcome of the cases they decide on the merits. Specifically, looking to one year of data from …

The Six-Month List And The Unintended Consequences Of Judicial Accountibility, Miguel F. P. De Figueiredo, Alexandra D. Lahav, Peter Siegelman

Cornell Law Review

A little-known mechanism instituted to improve judicial accountability and speed up the work of the federal judiciary has led to unintended consequences, many of them unfortunate. Federal district court judges are subject to a soft deadline known as the Six-Month List (the List). By law, every judge's backlog (cases older than three years and motions pending more than six months) is made public twice a year. Because judges have life tenure and fixed salaries, a mere reporting requirement should not influence their behavior. But it does. Using the complete record of all federal civil cases between 1980 and 2017 and …

Balanced Judicial Realism In The Service Of Justice: Judge Richard D. Cudahy, Elizabeth Mertz, Cynthia Grant Bowman

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

There is a quiet irony to be found in scholarly writings about the judiciary, which often center around high-profile jurists selected as the “great” judges. But there are great judges who do not receive or even want such widespread recognition, and who do not discuss their philosophy of judging—they simply focus on the job in front of them. Judges who operate with humility can often be very quiet about their legacies—brushing the issue off, as if uncomfortable with the attention. Anyone who knew Judge Richard D. Cudahy of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit will recognize …

Attorney General V Mutuna And Others (Appeal No. 088/2012) [2013] Zmsc 38, Muna B. Ndulo

SAIPAR Case Review

No abstract provided.

Unprecedented? Judicial Confirmation Battles And The Search For A Usable Past, Josh Chafetz

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent years have seen intense conflicts over federal judicial appointments, culminating in Senate Republicans' 2016 refusal to consider the nomination of Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, Senate Democrats' 2017 filibuster of Neil Gorsuch's nomination to the same seat, and Republicans' triggering of the "nuclear option" to confirm Gorsuch. At every stage in this process, political actors on both sides have accused one another of "unprecedented" behavior.

This Essay, written for the 2017 Supreme Court issue of the Harvard Law Review, examines these disputes and their histories, with an eye toward understanding the ways in which discussions of (un)precedentedness …

Monsanto Lecture: The Complicated Business Of State Supreme Court Elections: An Empirical Perspective, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Proponents of judicial elections and related campaign activities emphasize existing First Amendment jurisprudence as well as similarities linking publicly elected state judges and other publicly-elected state officials. Opponents focus on judicial campaign contributions’ corrosive effects, including their potential to unduly influence judicial outcomes. Using a comprehensive data set of 2,345 business-related cases decided by state supreme courts across all fifty states between 2010–12, judicial election critics, including Professor Joanna Shepherd, emphasize the potential for bias and find that campaign contributions from business sources to state supreme court judicial candidates corresponded with candidates’ pro-business votes as justices. While Shepherd’s main findings …

Judging The Judiciary By The Numbers: Empirical Research On Judges, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Do judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges’ decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that …

Exemplary Legal Writing 2016: Books Selected By Our Respectable Authorities: Five Recommendations, Femi Cadmus

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Introduction To Juries And Mixed Tribunals Across The Globe: New Developments, Common Challenges And Future Directions, Nancy S. Marder, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This introduction to the special issue of Oñati Socio-legal Series describes the goals of the conference on Juries and Mixed Tribunals across the Globe, and identifies themes that emerged as jury scholars from all over the world examined different forms of lay participation in legal decision-making. The introduction focuses on common challenges that different systems of lay participation face, including the selection of impartial fact finders and the presentation of complex cases to lay citizens. The introduction and special issue articles also highlight new developments and innovative practices to address these challenges, including some tools, like decision trees, that remain …

Can Judges Make Reliable Numeric Judgments? Distorted Damages And Skewed Sentences, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In a series of studies involving over six hundred trial judges in three countries, we demonstrate that trial judges' civil damage awards and criminal sentences are subject to influences that make them erratic. We found that the presence of misleading numeric reference points (or "anchors") affected judges' decisions in a series of hypothetical cases. Specifically, judges imposed shorter sentences when assigning sentences in months rather than in years; awarded higher amounts of compensatory damages when informed of a cap on damage awards; imposed different sentences depending upon the sequence in which criminal cases were presented to them; and were influenced …

Reflections On The Korean Jury Trial, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Korea's experience with its new jury system offers many lessons for those interested in juries and jury reform worldwide. Aiming for a unique jury system that was ideally suited to Korean citizens and their legal system, those who crafted Korea's jury incorporated elements of both classic jury systems and mixed tribunals. Initially, the jury deliberates on guilt independently of the judge, but the procedure includes optional as well as mandatory opportunities for the presiding judge to advise the jury during its deliberation. The Korean jury delivers an advisory rather than binding jury verdict. These and other features of the Korean …

Juries, Lay Judges, And Trials, Toby S. Goldbach, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Working Papers

“Juries, Lay Judges, and Trials” describes the widespread practice of including ordinary citizens as legal decision makers in the criminal trial. In some countries, lay persons serve as jurors and determine the guilt and occasionally the punishment of the accused. In others, citizens decide cases together with professional judges in mixed decision-making bodies. What is more, a number of countries have introduced or reintroduced systems employing juries or lay judges, often as part of comprehensive reform in emerging democracies. Becoming familiar with the job of the juror or lay citizen in a criminal trial is thus essential for understanding contemporary …

Altering Attention In Adjudication, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich, Chris Guthrie

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Judges decide complex cases in rapid succession but are limited by cognitive constraints. Consequently judges cannot allocate equal attention to every aspect of a case. Case outcomes might thus depend on which aspects of a case are particularly salient to the judge. Put simply, a judge focusing on one aspect of a case might reach a different outcome than a judge focusing on another. In this Article, we report the results of a series of studies exploring various ways in which directing judicial attention can shape judicial outcomes. In the first study, we show that judges impose shorter sentences when …

Contrition In The Courtroom: Do Apologies Affect Adjudication?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Chris Guthrie, Andrew J. Wistrich

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Apologies usually help to repair social relationships and appease aggrieved parties. Previous research has demonstrated that in legal settings, apologies influence how litigants and juries evaluate both civil and criminal defendants. Judges, however, routinely encounter apologies offered for instrumental reasons, such as to reduce a civil damage award or fine, or to shorten a criminal sentence. Frequent exposure to insincere apologies might make judges suspicious of or impervious to apologies. In a series of experimental studies with judges as research participants, we find that in some criminal settings, apologies can induce judges to be more lenient, but overall, apologizing to …

Free Exercise Of Religion Before The Bench: Empirical Evidence From The Federal Courts, Michael Heise, Gregory C. Sisk

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

We analyze various factors that influence judicial decisions in cases involving Free Exercise Clause or religious accommodation claims and decided by lower federal courts. Religious liberty claims, including those moored in the Free Exercise Clause, typically generate particularly difficult questions about how best to structure the sometimes contentious relation between the religious faithful and the sovereign government. Such difficult questions arise frequently in and are often framed by litigation. Our analyses include all digested Free Exercise and religious accommodation claim decisions by federal court of appeals and district court judges from 1996 through 2005. As it relates to one key …

Women In Robes, Sital Kalantry

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This article presents statistics on the number of women in the judiciary and argues for gender parity to further equality, enhance courts' legitimacy, and strengthen the rule of law.

Special Feature: The Future Of Lay Adjudication In Korea And Japan, Hiroshi Fukurai, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Three years after Korea introduced the jury system for the first time in its history, and two years following the Japanese introduction of a mixed court in which citizen and professional judges decide serious criminal cases, the Second East Asian Law and Society Conference was held on September 30th and October 1st, 2011 in the vibrant city of Seoul, South Korea. This Special Issue of the Yonsei Law Journal offers an opportunity to present work on some of the key issues that were discussed and debated at this remarkable conference. In particular, the special issue offers new research on the …

“In The Judge’S Heart:” Rethinking The Role Of Empathy In The Supreme Court Nomination And Confirmation Process, Louis H. Guard

Cornell Law School J.D. Student Research Papers

This paper addresses President Obama’s standard of “empathy” as a qualification for potential nominees to the Supreme Court. The paper seeks to germinate answers to questions surrounding the meaning and purpose of empathy as a quality for Supreme Court Justices and ways empathy might be effectively promoted moving forward. Working within the narrow but recent line of scholarship on empathy this paper supports the position that empathy is both a desirable and necessary quality for nominees to the Court. However, the paper and research also suggests that empathy should not be the only major defining quality considered by the president …

Actual Versus Perceived Performance Of Judges, Theodore Eisenberg, Talia Fisher, Issi Rosen-Zvi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Coming Off The Bench: Legal And Policy Implications Of Proposals To Allow Retired Justices To Sit By Designation On The Supreme Court, Lisa T. Mcelroy, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In the fall of 2010, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced a bill that would have overridden a New Deal-era federal statute forbidding retired Justices from serving by designation on the Supreme Court of the United States. The Leahy bill would have authorized the Court to recall willing retired Justices to substitute for recused Justices. This Article uses the Leahy bill as a springboard for considering a number of important constitutional and policy questions, including whether the possibility of 4-4 splits justifies the substitution of a retired Justice for an active one; whether permitting retired Justices to substitute for recused Justices would …

Judicial Reform, Constitutionalism And The Rule Of Law In Zambia: From A Justice System To A Just System, Muna Ndulo

Zambia Social Science Journal

In Zambia it is generally agreed on by all stakeholders that the judicial system needs reform to make it more accountable, independent, and able to deliver justice efficiently and effectively. This article discusses judicial reform in the context of the independence of the judiciary. It tries to unpack the term judicial reform. It argues that for the rule of law and constitutionalism to prevail it is crucial that the judiciary is independent and there is separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and legislature and the judiciary. For judges to be personally and substantively independent they need security …

Sequencing The Issues For Judicial Decisionmaking: Limitations From Jurisdictional Primacy And Intrasuit Preclusion, Kevin M. Clermont

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This Article treats the order of decision on multiple issues in a single case. That order can be very important, with a lot at stake for the court, society, and parties. Generally speaking, although the parties can control which issues they put before a judge, the judge gets to choose the decisional sequence in light of those various interests.

The law sees fit to put few limits on the judge's power to sequence. The few limits are, in fact, quite narrow in application, and even narrower if properly understood. The Steel Co.-Ruhrgas rule generally requires a federal court to decide …

Majoritarian Difficulty And Theories Of Constitutional Decision Making, Michael C. Dorf

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Recent scholarship in political science and law challenges the view that judicial review in the United States poses what Alexander Bickel famously called the "counter-majoritarian difficulty." Although courts do regularly invalidate state and federal action on constitutional grounds, they rarely depart substantially from the median of public opinion. When they do so depart, if public opinion does not eventually come in line with the judicial view, constitutional amendment, changes in judicial personnel, and/or changes in judicial doctrine typically bring judicial understandings closer to public opinion. But if the modesty of courts dissolves Bickel's worry, it raises a distinct one: Are …

"Our Cities Institutions" And The Institution Of The Common Law, Bernadette Meyler

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The audiences of early modern English drama were multiple, and they intersected with the legal system in various ways, whether through the cross-pollination of the theaters and the Inns of Court, the representations of the sovereign’s justice performed before him, or the shared evidentiary orientations of jurors and spectators. As this piece written for a symposium on “Reasoning from Literature” contends, Shakespeare’s Measure for Measure addressed to these various audiences the question of whether the King should judge in person. In doing so, it drew on extant political theories suggesting that the King refrain from exposing himself to public censure …

Judicial Recusal & Expanding Notions Of Due Process, Andrey Spektor, Michael A. Zuckerman

Cornell Law School J.D. Student Research Papers

The merits of judicial elections have been litigated in journals around the country. In light of the recent Supreme Court decisions in White and Caperton, this debate will only intensify. Rather than revisit the arguments for and against electing judges, this Article argues that applying the Mathews v. Eldridge test in cases where a litigant’s due process is threatened by an elected judge—a possibility that the Court initially dismissed in White against Justice Ginsburg’s protests, and then took head on in Caperton—will balance First Amendment rights that judicial elections breed against the rights of the litigants that the Constitution protects. …