Judges Commons^™

The Competency Conundrum: Problems Courts Have Faced In Applying Different Standards For Competency To Be Executed, John L. Farringer, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

Throughout Anglo-American legal history, there has been a general agreement, based on numerous rationales, that mentally incompetent inmates should not be executed for their crimes. The recurring problem, however, is how to define "incompetence" or "insanity." Legislatures and courts have sought to provide a common- sense definition, but in practice judges must confront highly technical terminology from the ever evolving field of psychiatry. Additionally, the definition must be flexible enough to apply to a variety of cases, while being universal enough to assure that all defendants are treated fairly and equally.

At hearings to determine a prisoner's competency to be …

Judges Cooperating With Scientists: A Proposal For More Effective Limits On The Federal Trial Judge's Inherent Power To Appoint Technical Advisors, Robert L. Hess, Ii

Vanderbilt Law Review

Scientifically complex cases challenge the expertise of federal trial judges.' Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court has held that federal trial judges must take an active role in deter- mining the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed its view that the adversary system is capable of handling most scientific issues, and noted that trial judges may seek the help of third-party experts. Thus, the federal trial judge confronted with a scientifically complex case may rely on the adversaries or may seek help from a third-party expert. When faced with this choice, judges …

Inside The Judicial Mind, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The quality of the judicial system depends upon the quality of decisions that judges make. Even the most talented and dedicated judges surely make occasional mistakes, but the public understandably expects judges to avoid systematic errors. This expectation, however, might be unrealistic. Psychologists who study human judgment and choice have learned that people frequently fall prey to cognitive illusions that produce systematic errors in judgment. Even though judges are experienced, well-trained, and highly motivated decision makers, they might be vulnerable to cognitive illusions. We report the results of an empirical study designed to determine whether five common cognitive illusions (anchoring, …

Court Fixing, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article critically examines the existing social science evidence on the relative importance of various individual factors on judicial behavior and adds to that evidence by considering the influence of prior academic experience on judges. Researchers have not focused much attention on the importance of a judge's background as a full-time law professor and legal scholar, although more than thirteen percent of courts of appeals appointees were former law professors. Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan both viewed the federal judiciary (particularly the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals) as integral to their policy agendas, and both further believed that …