Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Decision making (2)
- Accountability (1)
- Case assignments (1)
- Court of the Southern District of New York (1)
- Court rules (1)
-
- Daniels v. City of New York (1)
- Discursive dilemma (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Federal courts (1)
- Independence (1)
- Judicial independence (1)
- Juries (1)
- Jurors (1)
- Jury voting (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Lottery paradox (1)
- Minorities (1)
- New York Police Department (1)
- Police (1)
- Related cases (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
- Social welfare (1)
- Special verdicts (1)
- Stop and frisk (1)
- Verdicts (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano
Jury Voting Paradoxes, Jason Iuliano
Michigan Law Review
The special verdict is plagued by two philosophical paradoxes: the discursive dilemma and the lottery paradox. Although widely discussed in the philosophical literature, these paradoxes have never been applied to jury decision making. In this Essay, I use the paradoxes to show that the special verdict’s vote-reporting procedures can lead judges to render verdicts that the jurors themselves would reject. This outcome constitutes a systemic breakdown that should not be tolerated in a legal system that prides itself on the fairness of its jury decision-making process. Ultimately, I argue that, because the general verdict with answers to written questions does …
Judicial Independence And Social Welfare, Michael D. Gilbert
Judicial Independence And Social Welfare, Michael D. Gilbert
Michigan Law Review
Judicial independence is a cornerstone of American constitutionalism. It empowers judges to check the other branches of government and resolve cases impartially and in accordance with law. Yet independence comes with a hazard. Precisely because they are independent, judges can ignore law and pursue private agendas. For two centuries, scholars have debated those ideas and the underlying tradeoff: independence versus accountability. They have achieved little consensus, in part because independence raises difficult antecedent questions. We cannot decide how independent to make a judge until we agree on what a judge is supposed to do. That depends on one’s views about …
The Danger Of Nonrandom Case Assignment: How The Southern District Of New York's "Related Cases" Rule Shaped Stop-And-Frisk Rulings, Katherine A. Macfarlane
The Danger Of Nonrandom Case Assignment: How The Southern District Of New York's "Related Cases" Rule Shaped Stop-And-Frisk Rulings, Katherine A. Macfarlane
Michigan Journal of Race and Law
The Southern District of New York’s local rules are clear: “[A]ll active judges . . . shall be assigned substantially an equal share of the categories of cases of the court over a period of time.” Yet for the past fourteen years, Southern District Judge Shira Scheindlin has been granted near-exclusive jurisdiction over one category of case: those involving wide-sweeping constitutional challenges to the New York Police Department’s (NYPD) stop-and-frisk policies. In 1999, Judge Scheindlin was randomly assigned Daniels v. City of New York, the first in a series of high-profile and high-impact stop-and-frisk cases. Since then, she has overseen …