Judges Commons^™

The Role Of Law In U.S. History Textbooks, Russ Versteeg

Cleveland State Law Review

This Article analyzes the references to law found in three standard U.S. History textbooks: (1) ALAN BRINKLEY, AMERICAN HISTORY CONNECTING WITH THE PAST 745 (McGraw-Hill Educ., 15th ed. 2015); (2) ERIC FONER, GIVE ME LIBERTY! AN AMERICAN HISTORY 461 (Steve Forman et al. eds., 5th ed. 2017); and (3) DAVID GOLDFIELD ET AL., THE AMERICAN JOURNEY: A HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES (7th ed. Combined vol. 2014, 2011, 2008). The Article includes a quantitative analysis of topics (i.e., tabulating the topics that appear most frequently in the texts arranged chronologically) as well as summaries of those topics. It also discusses …

Re-Imprisonment Without A Jury Trial: Supervised Release And The Problem Of Second-Class Status, Stephen A. Simon

Cleveland State Law Review

The Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in United States v. Haymond shone a light on a practice that has not yet received attention commensurate with its significance: the re-imprisonment of individuals on supervised release without a jury trial. At first blush, the decision is most notable for setting bounds on the government’s ability to re-imprison individuals on supervised release without observing the constitutional rights normally available to defendants in criminal prosecutions. However, examination of the opinions reveals that the decision’s immediate doctrinal impact was quite limited. Moreover, although the three opinions issued in the case reflected disagreements among the Justices, all …

Are Federal Exonerees Paid?: Lessons For The Drafting And Interpretation Of Wrongful Conviction Compensation Statutes, Jeffrey S. Gutman

Cleveland State Law Review

In this third of a series of articles on wrongful conviction compensation statutes, Professor Jeffrey Gutman tackles the first statute attempted to be passed in the United States – the federal wrongful conviction compensation statute. Championed in concept by Edwin Borchard, it was in fact poorly drafted, and recommendations by Attorney General Homer Cummings to improve it were only partly successful. This Article retraces the long legislative history of the statute which is dotted with sloppy language and reasoning, unexplained amendments and an unfortunate focus on who was not to benefit from it, rather than who was. This tangled legislative …

Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira

Cleveland State Law Review

Multiple mistrials following validly-prosecuted trials are becoming an increasingly harsh reality in today’s criminal justice system. Currently, the Ohio Supreme Court has not provided any guidelines to help its trial judges know when to make the crucial decision to dismiss an indictment with prejudice following a string of properly-declared mistrials, especially due to repeated hung juries. Despite multiple mistrials that continue to result in no conviction, criminal defendants often languish behind bars, suffering detrimental psychological harm and a loss of personal freedom as they remain in “legal limbo” waiting to retry their case. Furthermore, continuously retrying defendants cuts against fundamental …

Ohio's Modern Courts Amendment Must Be Amended: Why And How, Richard S. Walinski, Mark D. Wagoner Jr.

Cleveland State Law Review

A 1968 amendment to the Ohio Constitution granted the Supreme Court of Ohio the authority to promulgate “rules governing practice and procedure” for Ohio courts. The amendment also provided that “[a]ll laws in conflict with such rules shall be of no further force or effect after such rules have taken effect” and that no rule may “abridge, enlarge, or modify any substantive right.”

Although the amendment was explicit about automatic repeal of existing laws, it says nothing about whether the General Assembly may legislate on a procedural matter after a court rule takes effect. That silence has caused enduring confusion. …

Constitutional Cases And The Four Cardinal Virtues, R. George Wright

Cleveland State Law Review

In addressing constitutional cases, judges face no shortage of legal rules, tests, principles, doctrines, and policies upon which to draw. In those cases, the challenge is assumed to be to identify and apply the most relevant such legal rules, tests, principles, doctrines, and policies. An accompanying judicial opinion tries to articulate this process, partly to legitimize the outcome, partly to provide guidance, and perhaps partly for purposes of civic education and inspiration. This Article recommends a somewhat different approach to constitutional adjudication. Specifically, this Article recommends supplementing the above standard forms of constitutional adjudication with appropriate and legitimate attention to …

Aligning Judicial Elections With Our Constitutional Values: The Separation Of Powers, Judicial Free Speech, And Due Process, Jason D. Grimes

Cleveland State Law Review

This Note consists of five Parts. Part II traces the historical development of state judicial elections from the perspective of the Framers' doctrine of separation of powers. It shows that judicial elections were borne more of historical contingency than constitutional design. Part II then assesses the recent history of elections to the Ohio Supreme Court. It determines that Ohio's judicial elections share two problems with many other states: millions of dollars given to judicial candidates by special interests likely to appear before the court, and candidates' broad freedom of speech to earn the political and financial support of these special …

Disarming The Confirmation Process, Michael M. Gallagher

Cleveland State Law Review

To improve the current process and eliminate the bitter nature of confirmation hearings, Senators should not consider a nominee's ideology in determining whether to vote for that nominee. Ideological scrutiny lacks historical and constitutional support; it has led to repeated, prolonged battles that threaten to draw the confirmation process into a dangerous stalemate. Removing ideology from judicial nominations would return the confirmation process to its original understanding, one in which the President enjoys the dominant role. Those who argue that allowing the President, not the Senate, to consider a nominee's ideology would harm the federal judiciary and ignore the nature …

Gates, Leon, And The Compromise Of Adjudicative Fairness (Part Ii): Of Aggressive Majoritarianism, Willful Deafness, And The New Exception To The Exclusionary Rule, Joel Jay Finer

Cleveland State Law Review

Part I examined in a dialogue form the idea that Justice White and other members of the Leon majority had prejudged issues of law in earlier cases––pre-committed themselves in violation of their duty of impartiality––by elaborating in detailed, cohesive, comprehensive opinions, reasons why existing law was incorrect and had to be changed to permit a "good-faith, objective police reasonableness" exception to the exclusionary rule. These prejudgments precluded fair consideration of the merits in Leon. Beyond that, the Leon opinion itself, considered in view of the arguments of counsel and the scholarship in currency, evinced an agenda-driven pre-commitment to its outcome; …