Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Trust In The Jury System As A Predictor Of Juror/Jury Decisions, Kimberly S. Dellapaolera, Bailey A. Barnes, Brian H. Bornstein
Trust In The Jury System As A Predictor Of Juror/Jury Decisions, Kimberly S. Dellapaolera, Bailey A. Barnes, Brian H. Bornstein
UCARE Research Products
To determine whether jurors’ attitudes are correlated with their verdicts and judgments at trial, the present experiments examined the relationship between individuals’ trust in the jury system, other legal attitudes, and their verdict judgments, at both the individual (juror) and group (jury) level. We used a binary logistic regression model to examine the factors—jury instructions and individual difference measures—that contribute to a juror’s verdict. The results indicate that jurors with higher PJAQ and JUST scores had a higher likelihood of voting guilty on a homicide trial involving a mercy killing. It was also found that the majority of juries in …
Persuasive Authority And The Nebraska Supreme Court: Are Certain Jurisdictions Or Secondary Resources More Persuasive Than Others?, Stefanie S. Pearlman
Persuasive Authority And The Nebraska Supreme Court: Are Certain Jurisdictions Or Secondary Resources More Persuasive Than Others?, Stefanie S. Pearlman
Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications
In this article, the author analyzes whether the Nebraska Supreme Court—as currently composed—favors particular jurisdictions or certain types of secondary resources as authority when there is a lack of precedent on a given legal issue. For this study, the author reviewed the advance opinions in Volume 295 of the Nebraska Reports to address two hypotheses: (1) When there is an absence of binding authority, it is typically better to cite to a state similar to your state—one that borders your state or that shares the same circuit; and (2) When using secondary resources, it is better to use resources authored …
When Facts Don’T Matter, Eric Berger
When Facts Don’T Matter, Eric Berger
Nebraska College of Law: Faculty Publications
We are used to thinking that facts shape legal outcomes, but sometimes the Supreme Court wants nothing to do with facts. In some high-profile constitutional decisions, the Roberts Court has ignored important congressional findings, deeming irrelevant facts that document the very mischief Congress sought to remedy. Similarly, in these same cases the Court exploits the muddy line between facial and as-applied challenges to avoid confronting particular facts. The Justices in these cases do not question the veracity of seemingly relevant facts. Rather, they write their opinions as though these facts don’t matter. This Article examines the Court’s penchant for brushing …