Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Civil procedure (3)
- Bias (1)
- Courts (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Deception (1)
-
- Demeanor (1)
- Empirical study (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Fact-finding (1)
- Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (1)
- Federal government (1)
- Hearings (1)
- Interpretive services (1)
- Interpretive services in court (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judicial recusal (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jury sentencing (1)
- Legal representation (1)
- Limited-English proficiency (1)
- Litigation and civil procedure (1)
- Litigation, alternative dispute resolution, and remedies (1)
- Mistranslates (1)
- Multidistrict litigation (1)
- Norms (1)
- Policy (1)
- Presence (1)
- Procedural justice (1)
- Right to interpreter (1)
- Rule 11 (1)
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Judges
The Unwritten Norms Of Civil Procedure, Diego A. Zambrano
The Unwritten Norms Of Civil Procedure, Diego A. Zambrano
Northwestern University Law Review
The rules of civil procedure depend on norms and conventions that control their application. Civil procedure is a famously rule-based field centered on textual commands in the form of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP). There are over eighty rules, hundreds of local judge-made rules, due process doctrines, and statutory rules, too. But written rules are overrated. Deep down, proceduralists know that the application of written rules hinges on broader norms that animate them, expand or constrain them, and even empower judges to ignore them. Unlike the FRCP and related doctrines, these procedural norms are unwritten, sociological, flexible, and …
The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley
The Failure Of Judicial Recusal And Disclosure Rules: Evidence From A Field Experiment, Dane Thorley
Northwestern University Law Review
U.S. courts rely predominately on judicial self-recusal and in-court disclosure to address judicial conflicts of interest and maintain a critical perception of impartiality. But these approaches fail to account for the legal, institutional, and social dynamics that surround the relationship between judges, attorneys, and the adjudicative process. In reality, judges rarely use their discretion to disclose conflicts or recuse themselves, and attorneys do not ask them to do so. If we understand both the legal and extralegal incentives at play in these decisions, none of these outcomes should be surprising. The shortcomings of recusal and disclosure rules are particularly salient …
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.
Policy Considerations And Implications In United States V. Bryant, Jessica Larsen
Policy Considerations And Implications In United States V. Bryant, Jessica Larsen
Northwestern Journal of Law & Social Policy
No abstract provided.
Hearings, Mark Spottswood
Hearings, Mark Spottswood
Faculty Working Papers
This article explores a constantly recurring procedural question: When is fact-finding improved by a live hearing, and when would it be better to rely on a written record? Unfortunately, when judges, lawyers, and rulemakers consider this issue, they are led astray by the widely shared—but false—assumption that a judge can best determine issues of credibility by viewing the demeanor of witnesses while they are testifying. In fact, a large body of scientific evidence indicates that judges are more likely to be deceived by lying or mistaken witnesses when observing their testimony in person than if the judges were to review …