Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Federal courts (4)
- Jury trials (2)
- Absent Declarants (1)
- Alienage jurisdiction (1)
- Anchoring (1)
-
- Bifurcated trial (1)
- Civil Law (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Civil cases (1)
- Cognitive illusions (1)
- Confrontation Clause (1)
- Corporate governance (1)
- Courts (1)
- Crawford v. Washington (1)
- Credibility assessments (1)
- Deal litigation (1)
- Delaware corporation law (1)
- Deliberative democracy (1)
- Dockets (1)
- Egocentric bias (1)
- Emotion (1)
- Emotional (1)
- Empirical legal studies (1)
- Empirical research (1)
- Epistemology (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Evidence Rules (1)
- Exculpatory testimony (1)
- Federal securities law (1)
- Federalism (1)
- Publication
- File Type
Articles 1 - 11 of 11
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Judging By Heuristic: Cognitive Illusions In Judicial Decision Making, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich
Judging By Heuristic: Cognitive Illusions In Judicial Decision Making, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski
Many people rely on mental shortcuts, or heuristics, to make complex decisions, but this sometimes leads to inaccurate inferences, or cognitive illusions. A recent study suggests such cognitive illusions influence judicial decision making.
The Color Of Truth: Race And The Assessment Of Credibility, Sheri Lynn Johnson
The Color Of Truth: Race And The Assessment Of Credibility, Sheri Lynn Johnson
Sheri Lynn Johnson
No abstract provided.
Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Xenophilia In American Courts, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Kevin M. Clermont
Foreigner! The word says it all. Verging on the politically incorrect, the expression is full of connotation and implication. A foreigner will face bias. By such a thought process, many people believe that litigants have much to fear in courts foreign to them. In particular, non-Americans fare badly in American courts. Foreigners believe this. Even Americans believe this. Such views about American courts are understandable. After all, the grant of alienage jurisdiction to the federal courts, both original and removal, constitutes an official assumption that xenophobic bias is present in state courts. As James Madison said of state courts: “We …
Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Exorcising The Evil Of Forum-Shopping, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Kevin M. Clermont
Most of the business of litigation comprises pretrial disputes. A common and important dispute is over where adjudication should take place. Civil litigators deal with nearly as many change-of-venue motions as trials. The battle over venue often constitutes the critical issue in a case. The American way is to provide plaintiffs with a wide choice of venues for suit. But the American way has its drawbacks. To counter these drawbacks, an integral part of our court systems, and in particular the federal court system, is the scheme of transfer of venue "in the interest of justice." However, the leading evaluative …
Trial By Jury Or Judge: Which Is Speedier?, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin Clermont
Trial By Jury Or Judge: Which Is Speedier?, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
Many take as a given that jury-tried cases consume more time than judge-tried cases. Judge Richard Posner of the Seventh Circuit, for example, opines: “Court queues are almost always greatest for parties seeking civil jury trials. This makes economic sense. Such trials are more costly than bench trials both because of jury fees (which … understate the true social costs of the jury) and because a case normally takes longer to try to a jury than to a judge …. Parties are therefore “charged” more for jury trials by being made to wait in line longer.” A close reading reveals …
Courts In Cyberspace, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont
Courts In Cyberspace, Theodore Eisenberg, Kevin M. Clermont
Kevin M. Clermont
No abstract provided.
Trial By Jury Or Judge: Transcending Empiricism, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Trial By Jury Or Judge: Transcending Empiricism, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg
Kevin M. Clermont
Pity the civil jury, seen by some as the sickest organ of a sick system. Yet the jury has always been controversial. One might suppose that, with so much at stake for so long, we would all know a lot about the ways juries differ from judges in their behavior. In fact, we know remarkably little. This Article provides the first large-scale comparison of plaintiff win rates and recoveries in civil cases tried before juries and judges. In two of the most controversial areas of modern tort law--product liability and medical malpractice--the win rates substantially differ from other cases' win …
Reflections On The Korean Jury Trial, Valerie P. Hans
Reflections On The Korean Jury Trial, Valerie P. Hans
Valerie P. Hans
Case For A Constitutional Definition Of Hearsay: Requiring Confrontation Of Testimonial, Nonassertive Conduct And Statements Admitted To Explain An Unchallenged Investigation, The , James L. Kainen
James L. Kainen
Crawford v. Washington’s historical approach to the confrontation clause establishes that testimonial hearsay inadmissible without confrontation at the founding is similarly inadmissible today, despite whether it fits a subsequently developed hearsay exception. Consequently, the requirement of confrontation depends upon whether an out-of-court statement is hearsay, testimonial, and, if so, whether it was nonetheless admissible without confrontation at the founding. A substantial literature has developed about whether hearsay statements are testimonial or were, like dying declarations, otherwise admissible at the founding. In contrast, this article focuses on the first question – whether statements are hearsay – which scholars have thus far …
Confronting The Peppercorn Settlement In Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis And A Proposal For Reform, Jill E. Fisch, Sean J. Griffith, Steven M. Davidoff
Confronting The Peppercorn Settlement In Merger Litigation: An Empirical Analysis And A Proposal For Reform, Jill E. Fisch, Sean J. Griffith, Steven M. Davidoff
Steven Davidoff Solomon
Shareholder litigation challenging corporate mergers is ubiquitous, with the likelihood of a shareholder suit exceeding 90%. The value of this litigation, however, is questionable. The vast majority of merger cases settle for nothing more than supplemental disclosures in the merger proxy statement. The attorneys that bring these lawsuits are compensated for their efforts with a court-awarded fee. This leads critics to charge that merger litigation benefits only the lawyers who bring the claims, not the shareholders they represent. In response, defenders of merger litigation argue that the lawsuits serve a useful oversight function and that the improved disclosures that result …
Tell Us A Story, But Don't Make It A Good One: Resolving The Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories And Federal Rule Of Evidence 403, Cathren Page
Cathren Page
Abstract: Tell Us a Story, But Don’t Make It A Good One: Resolving the Confusion Regarding Emotional Stories and Federal Rule of Evidence 403 by Cathren Koehlert-Page Courts need to reword their opinions regarding Rule 403 to address the tension between the advice to tell an emotionally evocative story at trial and the notion that evidence can be excluded if it is too emotional. In the murder mystery Mystic River, Dave Boyle is kidnapped in the beginning. The audience feels empathy for Dave who as an adult becomes one of the main suspects in the murder of his friend Jimmy’s …