Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

A New Public Interest Appellate Model: Public Counsel’S Court-Based Self-Help Clinic And Pro Bono “Triage” For Indigent Pro Se Civil Litigants On Appeal, Meehan Rasch Dec 2010

A New Public Interest Appellate Model: Public Counsel’S Court-Based Self-Help Clinic And Pro Bono “Triage” For Indigent Pro Se Civil Litigants On Appeal, Meehan Rasch

Meehan Rasch

A variety of new “pro se” or “pro bono” appellate programs have been sprouting up around the country in recent years. Courts, bar associations, and legal services and advocacy organizations are implementing these projects to grapple with the challenges raised by increasing numbers of pro se (self-represented) and indigent civil litigants in appellate courts. Judicial operational systems designed on the premise of adequately counseled parties are ill-prepared to handle an influx of self-represented litigants, posing frustrations for both pro se litigants and court personnel. The expansion of pro se litigation strains appellate court resources and staff, but because of the …


California's Dueling Harmless Error Standards: Approaches To Federal Constitutional Error In Civil Trials And Establishing The Proper Test For Dependency, Meehan Rasch Dec 2007

California's Dueling Harmless Error Standards: Approaches To Federal Constitutional Error In Civil Trials And Establishing The Proper Test For Dependency, Meehan Rasch

Meehan Rasch

For forty years, California appellate courts generally have applied one discrete harmless error test for federal constitutional error in criminal cases and another for civil proceedings. In appeals from convictions in California state criminal cases, errors rising to a federal constitutional dimension are governed by the standard of Chapman v. California, which requires that these errors be proven by the state to be harmless beyond any reasonable doubt. The more lenient standard (for the trial court) of People v. Watson, which holds errors of state law and procedure harmless unless there is a reasonable probability that such error prejudiced the …