Litigation Commons^™

Unwell: Indiana V. Edwards And The Fate Of Mentally Ill Pro Se Defendants, John H. Blume, Morgan J. Clark

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Federal Criminal Appeals: A Brief Empirical Perspective, Michael Heise

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Although few dispute the appellate process's centrality to justice systems, especially in the criminal context, debates over rationales supporting the appellate process's vaunted status in adjudication systems persist. Clearly, it is difficult to overestimate error correction as a justification for an appellate system. Of course, other rationales, such as a desire for lawmaking and legitimacy, also support the inclusion of a mechanism for appellate review in an adjudication system.

Though comparative latecomers, appellate courts are now ubiquitous in the American legal landscape—appellate review exists in state and federal systems for criminal convictions. Despite general agreement and widespread understanding that access …

Judge-Jury Agreement In Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication Of Kalven And Zeisel's The American Jury, Theodore Eisenberg, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Waters, G. Thomas Munsterman, Stewart J. Schwab, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This study uses a new criminal case data set to partially replicate Kalven and Zeisel's classic study of judge-jury agreement. The data show essentially the same rate of judge-jury agreement as did Kalven and Zeisel for cases tried almost 50 years ago. This study also explores judge-jury agreement as a function of evidentiary strength (as reported by both judges and juries), evidentiary complexity (as reported by both judges and juries), legal complexity (as reported by judges), and locale. Regardless of which adjudicator's view of evidentiary strength is used, judges tend to convict more than juries in cases of "middle" evidentiary …

Tailored Police Testimony At Suppression Hearings, Joel Atlas

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Whether a court must suppress evidence typically turns on the conduct or observations of the police officer who discovered the evidence. By falsely testifying to the facts surrounding the discovery of the evidence, a police officer may validate a blatantly unconstitutional search. New York courts have long recognized that police officers sometimes fabricate suppression testimony to meet constitutional restrictions. Indeed, the Appellate Division has rejected police testimony at suppression hearings where the officer’s testimony appears to have been “patently tailored to nullify constitutional objections.” Although, to be sure, rejections are rare and their number appears to be declining, the appellate …

The Scottsboro Trials: A Legal Lynching, Faust Rossi

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

"Whodunit" Versus "What Was Done": When To Admit Character Evidence In Criminal Cases, Sherry F. Colb

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In virtually every jurisdiction in the United States, the law of evidence prohibits parties from offering proof of an individual's general character traits to suggest that, on a specific occasion, the individual behaved in a manner consistent with those traits. In a criminal trial in particular, the law prohibits a prosecutor's introduction of evidence about the defendant's character as proof of his guilt. In this Article, Professor Colb proposes that the exclusion of defendant character evidence is appropriate in one category of cases but inappropriate in another. In the first category, which Professor Colb calls "whodunit" cases, the parties agree …

The Color Of Truth: Race And The Assessment Of Credibility, Sheri Lynn Johnson

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

An Analysis Of Public Attitudes Toward The Insanity Defense, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Results from a public opinion survey of knowledge, attitudes, and support for the insanity defense indicate that people dislike the insanity defense for both retributive and utilitarian reasons: they want insane law-breakers punished, and they believe that insanity defense procedures fail to protect the public. However, people vastly overestimate the use and success of the insanity plea. Several attitudinal and demographic variables that other researchers have found to be associated with people's support for the death penalty and perceptions of criminal sentencing are also related to support for the insanity defense. Implications for public policy are discussed.

Public Opinion Of Forensic Psychiatry Following The Hinckley Verdict, Dan Slater, Valerie P. Hans

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The authors obtained opinions of forensic psychiatry in a community survey following the not guilty by reason of insanity verdict in the Hinckley trial. A majority of respondents expressed little or no confidence in the specific psychiatric testimony in the Hinckley trial and only modest faith in the general ability of psychiatrists to determine legal insanity. Respondents' general and specific attitudes were strongly related. Younger people and women were more positive in their views of psychiatry in the courtroom.

"Plain Crazy:" Lay Definitions Of Legal Insanity, Valerie P. Hans, Dan Slater

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The 1982 Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity (NGRI) verdict in the trial of John Hinckley, Jr., would-be assassin of President Reagan, again has brought to the forefront long-standing public dissatisfaction in the United States with the insanity plea. In the wake of the Hinckley verdict, proposals for reform or abolition of the insanity defense have been submitted to both houses of the U.S. Congress and to state legislatures throughout the nation (Cunningham, 1983). Fueling this reform movement is apparent public dissatisfaction with the insanity plea as it is currently defined.

In contrast to voluminous literature concerning legal and psychiatric …

John Hinckley, Jr. And The Insanity Defense: The Public's Verdict, Valerie P. Hans, Dan Slater

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Public furor over the Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity verdict in the trial of John Hinckley, Jr. already has stimulated legal changes in the insanity defense. This study documents more systematically the dimensions of negative public opinion concerning the Hinckley verdict. A survey of Delaware residents shortly after the trial's conclusion indicated that the verdict was perceived as unfair, Hinckley was viewed as not insane, the psychiatrists' testimony at the trial was not trusted, and the vast majority thought that the insanity defense was a loophole. However, survey respondents were unable to define the legal test for insanity and …

Effects Of Corroboration Instructions In A Rape Case On Experimental Juries, Valerie P. Hans, Neil Brooks

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

The rules of evidence have evolved, in the main, to protect the jury from being misled, prejudiced or confused by certain types of evidence which might be presented to it. The rules attempt to achieve this purpose by utilizing a number of techniques, which were fashioned by common law judges. First, evidence which gives rise to these dangers might be excluded from the jury's consideration altogether. Secondly, such evidence might have to be corroborated by other evidence before the jury is permitted to reach a verdict in the case. Thirdly, the judge might be compelled to instruct the jury that …

Section 12 Of The Canada Evidence Act And The Deliberations Of Simulated Juries, Valerie P. Hans, Anthony N. Doob

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

In the past, there have been three major approaches to the experimental investigation of the jury. First, juror selection research involves the study of the relation between verdicts or leniency toward certain classes of defendants and the characteristics of potential jurors. The second class of research is group study, in which the amount and style of individual participation is observed within the context of simulated jury deliberations (e.g., Strodtbeck, James and Hawkins, 1957). Finally, experimental psychology has made another contribution to the study of the jury; numerous researchers have conducted experimental studies employing legal stimulus materials. Typically, in such a …