Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Judges Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 5 of 5

Full-Text Articles in Judges

Dissenting Opinions By Supreme Court Justices In Federal Income Tax Controversies, Walter J. Blum Dec 1983

Dissenting Opinions By Supreme Court Justices In Federal Income Tax Controversies, Walter J. Blum

Michigan Law Review

What is to be learned from this review of the various analyses offered in dissenting tax opinions over the past five terms of the Supreme Court? When the Court has decisively interpreted narrow or technical language in the statute, dissenters all too often indulge in lengthy analyses that can only serve to create further confusion. Only when the Court focuses on a judicially made rule or an issue with constitutional implications is a broader dissent appropriate. If dissenters generally adhered to the guidelines set forth at the outset of this Article the tax world would, I believe, be at least ...


Improving Jury Deliberations: A Reconsideration Of Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael D. Craig Apr 1983

Improving Jury Deliberations: A Reconsideration Of Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael D. Craig

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note approves of efforts to avoid hung juries by giving lesser included offense instructions but opposes those instructions that restrict juror decisions and coerce minority jurors. Rather, this Note offers a lesser included offense instruction that promotes flexibility and jury compromise without undermining the deliberative process. Part I describes the problem of hung juries and how courts have tried to prevent them with restrictive lesser included offense instructions. Part II analyzes the coercive impact of restrictive lesser included offense instructions and concludes that an instruction conditioning deliberations upon individual juror disagreement better promotes compromises on the merits while reducing ...


Habeas Corpus Review Of State Trial Court Failure To Give Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael H. Hoffheimer Apr 1983

Habeas Corpus Review Of State Trial Court Failure To Give Lesser Included Offense Instructions, Michael H. Hoffheimer

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

This Note advocates that federal courts review state criminal convictions in habeas corpus proceedings when lesser included offense instructions are available under state law but were not given. Part I demonstrates that granting such review conforms to the modern jurisdictional scope of federal collateral review because failure to give the instructions undermines the fact-finding function of juries and is therefore unconstitutional. Part II analyzes the proper standard of review and determines that the federal interest in protecting the reliability of the fact-finding process should prevail over any conflicting state interest in refusing to give lesser included offense instructions. Part II ...


Oral Argument And Expediting Appeals: A Compatible Combination, Joy A. Chapper Jan 1983

Oral Argument And Expediting Appeals: A Compatible Combination, Joy A. Chapper

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The purpose of this Article is to explore these issues in light of Sacramento's experience with the expedited appeal procedure. The data presented here are drawn from an evaluation of the first twelve months of the procedure's operation. This evaluation was based on court records of the more than one hundred cases that followed the expedited procedure to completion, in-person interviews with members of the court and court staff, and telephone interviews with participating attorneys. Part I briefly sets out the new procedure and the context in which this procedure was introduced and integrated. Part II discusses the ...


An Appellate Court Dilemma And A Solution Through Subject Matter Organization, Daniel J. Meador Jan 1983

An Appellate Court Dilemma And A Solution Through Subject Matter Organization, Daniel J. Meador

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

The recent litigation explosion presents a two-pronged dilemma for American appellate courts. If, on the one hand, the number of appellate judges is not expanded to keep abreast of growing case loads, there is a risk that courts will rely too heavily on professional staff, thereby watering down the decision-making process. If, on the other hand, the number of judges is proportionately increased with the growth in appellate litigation, the number of three-judge decisional units will also increase, thereby threatening predictability and uniformity in the law of the jurisdiction. This Article undertakes to explain that dilemma and to offer a ...