Law Commons^™

When Is Finality . . . Final? Rehearing And Resurrection In The Supreme Court, Aaron-Andrew P. Bruhl

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Prosecutorial Shaming: Naming Attorneys To Reduce Prosecutorial Misconduct, Adam M. Gershowitz

Faculty Publications

This Article explores the unfortunately large number of instances in which appellate courts reverse convictions for serious prosecutorial misconduct but do not identify the names of the prosecutors who committed that misconduct. Because judges are reluctant to publicly shame prosecutors whose cases are reversed, this Article advocates that a neutral set of third parties undertake the responsibility of publicly identifying prosecutors who have committed serious misconduct. The naming of prosecutors will shame bad actors, provide a valuable pedagogical lesson for junior prosecutors, and signal to trial judges that certain prosecutors must be monitored more closely to avoid future misconduct.

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

Faculty Publications

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 …

The Failure Of Bowles V. Russell, Scott Dodson

Faculty Publications

The Supreme Court recently decided Bowles v. Russell—perhaps that Term’s most underrated case—which characterized the time to file a civil notice of appeal as jurisdictional and therefore not subject to equitable excuses for noncompliance. In so holding, the Court overstated the supporting precedent, inflated the jurisdictional importance of statutes, and undermined an important recent movement to clarify when a rule is jurisdictional and when it is not. This did not have to be. The Court missed a golden opportunity to chart a middle course—holding the rule mandatory but nonjurisdictional—that would have been more consistent with precedent while resolving the …

The Effect Of Courtroom Technologies On And In Appellate Proceedings And Courtrooms, Fredric I. Lederer

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Interlocutory Appeals From Orders Denying Qualified Immunity: Determining The Proper Scope Of Appellate Jurisdiction, Kathryn R. Urbonya

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Cases And Materials On Trials, Judgments, And Appeals, Bolling R. Powell Jr.

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.