Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- At home (1)
- Civil procedure (1)
- Consent (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Daimler ag v. bauman (1)
-
- General jurisdiction (1)
- International Shoe (1)
- Interpretive services (1)
- Interpretive services in court (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jury sentencing (1)
- Limited-English proficiency (1)
- Minimum contacts (1)
- Mistranslates (1)
- Pennoyer (1)
- Personal jurisdiction (1)
- Right to interpreter (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sixth amendment (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Civil Procedure
Criminal Advisory Juries: A Sensible Compromise For Jury Sentencing Advocates, Kurt A. Holtzman
Criminal Advisory Juries: A Sensible Compromise For Jury Sentencing Advocates, Kurt A. Holtzman
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently noted that “juries in our constitutional order exercise supervisory authority over the judicial function by limiting the judge’s power to punish.” Yet in the majority of jurisdictions, contemporary judge-only sentencing practices neuter juries of their supervisory authority by divorcing punishment from guilt decisions. Moreover, without a chance to voice public disapproval at sentencing, juries are muted in their ability to express tailored, moral condemnation for distinct criminal acts. Although the modern aversion to jury sentencing is neither historically nor empirically justified, jury sentencing opponents are rightly cautious of abdicating sentencing power to laypeople. Nevertheless, …
If An Interpreter Mistranslates In A Courtroom And There Is No Recording, Does Anyone Care?: The Case For Protecting Lep Defendants’ Constitutional Rights, Lisa Santaniello
If An Interpreter Mistranslates In A Courtroom And There Is No Recording, Does Anyone Care?: The Case For Protecting Lep Defendants’ Constitutional Rights, Lisa Santaniello
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
No abstract provided.
Of Carrots And Sticks: General Jurisdiction And Genuine Consent, Craig Sanders
Of Carrots And Sticks: General Jurisdiction And Genuine Consent, Craig Sanders
Northwestern University Law Review
The United States Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Daimler AG v. Bauman changed how the courts will determine whether companies should be subject to general personal jurisdiction. In 1945, Pennoyer v. Neff’s geographical fixation gave way to International Shoe Co. v. Washington, which provided a test for courts to determine whether corporations had sufficient contact with a forum to meet the bar for personal jurisdiction there. Specific jurisdiction requires “minimum contacts,” provided the action is satisfactorily related to the forum. However, to be subject to general jurisdiction, a corporation must possess more than just “minimum contacts,” and claimants …