Law Commons^™

Elite Institutionalism And Judicial Assertiveness In The Supreme Court Of India, Manoj Mate

Manoj S. Mate

City Of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Focusing solely on whether a hotel owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a guest registry is akin to asking whether Verizon Wireless has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its customer lists. The answer to those questions should be yes, but the sixty-four thousand dollar question—and the proverbial elephant in the room—is whether hotel occupants and cell phone users forfeit their privacy rights simply because they check into the Beverly Hills Hotel or call their significant others from a Smart Phone on the Santa Monica Freeway. Put differently, a hotel owner’s expectation of privacy in a guest registry …

City Of Los Angeles V. Patel: The Upcoming Supreme Court Case No One Is Talking About, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Focusing solely on whether a hotel owner has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a guest registry is akin to asking whether Verizon Wireless has a reasonable expectation of privacy in its customer lists. The answer to those questions should be yes, but the sixty-four thousand dollar question—and the proverbial elephant in the room—is whether hotel occupants and cell phone users forfeit their privacy rights simply because they check into the Beverly Hills Hotel or call their significant others from a Smart Phone on the Santa Monica Freeway.

Put differently, a hotel owner’s expectation of privacy in a guest registry …

Judicial Reform, Constitutionalism And The Rule Of Law In Zambia: From A Justice System To A Just System, Muna Ndulo

Muna B Ndulo

In Zambia it is generally agreed on by all stakeholders that the judicial system needs reform to make it more accountable, independent, and able to deliver justice efficiently and effectively. This article discusses judicial reform in the context of the independence of the judiciary. It tries to unpack the term judicial reform. It argues that for the rule of law and constitutionalism to prevail it is crucial that the judiciary is independent and there is separation of powers between the executive and the judiciary, and legislature and the judiciary. For judges to be personally and substantively independent they need security …

Meta-Theory Of International Criminal Procedure: Vindicating The Rule Of Law, Jens David Ohlin

Jens David Ohlin

International criminal procedure is in a second phase of development, moving beyond the common law/civil law dichotomy and searching for its sui generis theory. The standard line is that international criminal procedure has an instrumental value: it services the general goals of international criminal justice and allows punishment for violations of substantive international criminal law. However, international criminal procedure also has an important and often overlooked intrinsic value not reducible to its instrumental value: it vindicates the Rule of Law. This vindication is performed by adjudicating allegations of criminal violations that occurred during periods of anarchy characterized by the absence …

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

Sheri Lynn Johnson

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

Race And Recalcitrance: The Miller-El Remands, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

In Batson v. Kentucky, the Supreme Court held that a prosecutor may not peremptorily challenge a juror based upon his or her race. Although Baston was decided more than twenty years ago, some lower courts still resist its command. Three recent cases provide particularly egregious examples of that resistance. The Fifth Circuit refused the Supreme Court's instruction in Miller-El v. Cockrell, necessitating a second grant of certiorari in Miller-El v. Dretke. The court then reversed and remanded four lower court cases for reconsideration in light of Miller-El, but in two cases the lower courts have thus …

Cross-Racial Identification Errors In Criminal Cases, Sheri Johnson

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

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

Sheri Lynn Johnson

No abstract provided.

Virginia's Capital Jurors, Stephen P. Garvey, Paul Marcus

Stephen P. Garvey

Next to Texas, no state has executed more capital defendants than Virginia. Moreover, the likelihood of a death sentence actually being carried out is greater in Virginia than it is elsewhere, while the length of time between the imposition of a death sentence and its actual execution is shorter. Virginia has thus earned a reputation among members of the defense bar as being among the worst of the death penalty states. Yet insofar as these facts about Virginia's death penalty relate primarily to the behavior of state and federal appellate courts, they suggest that what makes Virginia's death penalty unique …

Juror First Votes In Criminal Trials, Stephen P. Garvey, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Mott, G. Thomas Munsterman, Martin T. Wells

Stephen P. Garvey

Our analysis of the voting behavior of over 3,000 jurors in felony cases tried in Los Angeles, Maricopa County, the District of Columbia, and the Bronx reveals that only in D.C. does a juror's race appear to relate to how he or she votes. African-American jurors in D.C. appear more apt to vote not guilty on the jury's first ballot in cases involving minority defendants charged with drug offenses. We find no evidence, however, that this effect survives into the jury's final verdict.

Plaintiphobia In The Appellate Courts: Civil Rights Really Do Differ From Negotiable Instruments, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

Professors Clermont and Eisenberg conducted a systematic analysis of appellate court behavior and report that defendants have a substantial advantage over plaintiffs on appeal. Their analysis attempted to control for different variables that may affect the decision to appeal or the appellate outcome, including case complexity, case type, amount in controversy, and whether there had been a judge or a jury trial. Once they accounted for these variables and explored and discarded various alternate explanations, they came to the conclusion that a defendants' advantage exists probably because of appellate judges' misperceptions that trial level adjudicators are pro-plaintiff.

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 …

Sequencing The Issues For Judicial Decisionmaking: Limitations From Jurisdictional Primacy And Intrasuit Preclusion, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

This Article treats the order of decision on multiple issues in a single case. That order can be very important, with a lot at stake for the court, society, and parties. Generally speaking, although the parties can control which issues they put before a judge, the judge gets to choose the decisional sequence in light of those various interests. The law sees fit to put few limits on the judge’s power to sequence. The few limits are, in fact, quite narrow in application, and even narrower if properly understood. The Steel Co.-Ruhrgas rule generally requires a federal court to decide …

Civil Procedure’S Five Big Ideas, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

Civil procedure, more than any other of the basic law-school courses, conveys to students an understanding of the whole legal system. I propose that this purpose should become more openly the organizing theme of the course. The focus should remain, of course, on the mechanics of the judicial branch. What I am championing is giving some conscious attention, albeit mainly in the background and at an introductory level, to the big ideas of the constitutional structure within which the law formulates civil procedure. Such attention would unify the doctrinal study, while enriching it for the students and revealing its true …

How Employment-Discrimination Plaintiffs Fare In The Federal Courts Of Appeals, Kevin Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg, Stewart Schwab

Kevin M. Clermont

Employment-discrimination plaintiffs swim against the tide. Compared to the typical plaintiff, they win a lower proportion of cases during pretrial and after trial. Then, many of their successful cases are appealed. On appeal, they have a harder time in upholding their successes, as well in reversing adverse outcome. This tough story does not describe some tiny corner of the litigation world. Employment-discrimination cases constitute an increasing fraction of the federal civil docket, now reigning as the largest single category of cases at nearly 10 percent. In this article, we use official government data to describe the appellate phase of this …

Simplifying The Choice Of Forum: A Reply, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

We have three things to think about here, as the real estate agents say—“location, location, location.” Accordingly, the two of us have engaged for several years in empirical studies aimed at gauging the effect of forum on case outcome. The results to date strongly suggest that forum really matters. An early piece of the puzzle fell into place in our study of venue. In that article, we examined the benefits and costs of the federal courts scheme of transfer of civil venue “in the interest of justice.” Ours was a pretty straightforward and simple cost-benefit analysis, but we supported it …

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

Kevin M. Clermont

No abstract provided.

Xenophilia Or Xenophobia In American Courts? Before And After 9/11, Kevin M. Clermont, Theodore Eisenberg

Kevin M. Clermont

This article revisits the controversy regarding how foreigners fare in U.S. courts. The available data, if taken in a sufficiently big sample from numerous case categories and a range of years, indicate that foreigners have fared better in the federal courts than their domestic counterparts have fared. Thus, the data offer no support for the existence of xenophobic bias in U.S. courts. Nor do they establish xenophilia, of course. What the data do show is that case selection drives the outcomes for foreigners. Foreigners' aversion to U.S. forums can elevate the foreigners' success rates, when measured as a percentage of …

Restating Territorial Jurisdiction And Venue For State And Federal Courts, Kevin M. Clermont

Kevin M. Clermont

"Jurisdiction must become venue," concluded Professor Albert A. Ehrenzweig. Perhaps it should. More certain is the proposition that comprehending jurisdiction requires mastering its relationship with venue. Such conclusions lie at some distance, however, bringing to mind that every journey must begin with a single step. A solid first step takes me to the subject of this Symposium, the Restatement (Second) of Judgments. This, put simply, is a masterful work. Even while still in tentative drafts, it proved an invaluable aid to judge, practitioner, teacher, and student. Yet in a work of such scope, anyone could find grounds for differing. At …

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 …

Every Juror Wants A Story: Narrative Relevance, Third Party Guilt And The Right To Present A Defense, John H. Blume, Sheri L. Johnson, Emily C. Paavola

John H. Blume

On occasion, criminal defendants hope to convince a jury that the state has not met its burden of proving them guilty beyond a reasonable doubt by offering evidence that someone else (a third party) committed the crime. Currently, state and federal courts assess the admissibility of evidence of third-party guilt using a variety of standards. In general, however, there are two basic approaches. Many state courts require a defendant to proffer evidence of some sort of direct link or connection between a specific third-party and the crime. A second group of state courts, as well as federal courts, admit evidence …

Judicial Politics, Death Penalty Appeals, And Case Selection: An Empirical Study, John Blume, Theodore Eisenberg

John H. Blume

Several studies try to explain case outcomes based on the politics of judicial selection methods. Scholars usually hypothesize that judges selected by partisan popular elections are subject to greater political pressure in deciding cases than are other judges. No class of cases seems more amenable to such analysis than death penalty cases. No study, however, accounts both for judicial politics and case selection, the process through which cases are selected for death penalty litigation. Yet, the case selection process cannot be ignored because it yields a set of cases for adjudication that is far from a random selection of cases. …

A Cognitive Theory Of Fiduciary Relationships, Gregory S. Alexander

Gregory S Alexander

Is there anything special or distinctive about fiduciary relationships? Or is the term "fiduciary" nothing more than a label that obscures rather than clarifies? Recently, several law-and-economics scholars, building on the economic literature on agency costs, have argued that nothing categorically distinguishes fiduciary from nonfiduciary legal relationships. So-called fiduciary relationships, they argue, are nothing more or less than contractual relationships. This Essay hypothesizes that courts possess a fairly well-developed schema of the fiduciary role, but have not developed a comparable schema for ordinary contracting parties. The fiduciary role-schema often makes courts more likely to over-interpret behavior of fiduciaries than in …

The Legacy Of Anthony M. Kennedy, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

The defining moments in Justice Kennedy’s tenure on the Court came in Planned Parenthood, Lawrence, and United States v. Windsor, where the Court did to the Constitution—in the name of liberty—what it also did—in the name of democracy—to Florida’s citizens in Bush v. Gore. In all three cases, Justice Kennedy’s reliance on a broad conception of liberty, rather than equal protection principles, shifted the balance too heavily in favor of judicial, rather democratic, creation of unenumerated fundamental rights.

Justice Kennedy will rightly be celebrated for safeguarding reproductive freedom and championing sexual autonomy for same-sex couples, but underneath the black …

A Contribuição Da Doutrina Na Jurisdição Constitucional Portuguesa E Brasileira, Teresa M. G. Da Cunha Lopes

Teresa M. G. Da Cunha Lopes

O presente livro pretende fazer um estudo interformantes, com o fim de verificar se a jurisprudência das Cortes Constitucionais e Supremas resulta explicitamente permeável ao formante doutrinário. Por outro lado, o objeto principal da investigação são as citações diretas da doutrina que utilizam os juízes na motivação das decisões.

Pragmatism Applied: Imagining A Solution To The Problem Of Court Congestion, Michael L. Seigel

Michael L Seigel

Can we improve the efficiency of jury trials? If so, would this reduce the problem of court congestion? Is there any reason to favor this approach over those that seek to avoid jury trials altogether? This Article attempts to answer these difficult questions. It does so by articulating and then employing a methodology suggested by recent scholarly ruminations about the philosophy of pragmatism and its implications for legal scholarship and practice. Although pragmatism does not provide "right answers" to questions of legal doctrine-indeed, it rejects the notion that such things exist-it does provide some guidance in formulating the search for …

The Constitution According To Justices Scalia And Thomas: Alive And Kickin', Eric J. Segall

Eric J. Segall

No abstract provided.

National Interests, Foreign Injuries, And Federal Forum Non Conveniens, Elizabeth Lear

Elizabeth T Lear

This Article argues that the federal forum non conveniens doctrine subverts critical national interests in international torts cases. For over a quarter century, federal judges have assumed that foreign injury cases, particularly those filed by foreign plaintiffs, are best litigated abroad. This assumption is incorrect. Foreign injuries caused by multinational corporations who tap the American market implicate significant national interests in compensation and/or deterrence. Federal judges approach the forum non conveniens decision as if it were a species of choice of law, as opposed to a choice of forum question. Analyzing the cases from an adjudicatory perspective reveals that in …