Law Commons^™

Juries: Arbiters Or Arbitrary?, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

Playing The "Culture Card": Trials In A Mutli-Cultural Democracy, Richard O. Lempert

Articles

As I write, the racial divide in America is said to be greater than at any time in the past 25 years.' Two events are blamed: the O.J. Simpson criminal trial and the Louis Farrakan led "Million Man March." That these events should exacerbate racial division is extraordinary. The Farrakan led march brought together between 400,000 and 800,000 black males to pledge that they would take the kind of responsibility for their actions and their families that white Americans have long argued they should take. The O.J. Simpson trial was more a "who done it" than a racial morality play. …

Will The Punishment Fit The Victims? The Case For Pre-Trial Disclosure, And The Uncharted Future Of Victim Impact Information In Capital Jury Sentencing, José F. Anderson

All Faculty Scholarship

The United States Supreme Court decision in Payne v. Tennessee, upholding the use of victim impact statements in capital jury sentencing proceedings, marked one of the most dramatic reversals of a precedent in the history of United States constitutional jurisprudence. The decision in Payne expressly overruled Booth v. Maryland decided only four years earlier. The Booth case rejected the use of victim impact statements in capital sentencing cases that involved juries. In Payne, the Supreme Court made it clear that victims were entitled to offer, and juries were permitted to consider, the effect that a "death eligible" homicide had on …

"Countering Stereotypes." Review Of Medical Malpractice And The American Jury: Confronting The Myths About Jury Incompetence, Deep Pockets, And Outrageous Damage Awards, By N. Vidmar, Samuel R. Gross

Reviews

The story of The Medical Malpractice Trial has a place in popular American legal culture, somewhere on the shelf with Killers Who Got Off on Technicalities. The plot is simple and tragic. The protagonist is the Doctor, a good man with a flaw: He tries too hard. In the process, he makes an innocent mistake or believes he can prevent the unpreventable. In any event, he fails and the Patient dies or is permanently injured. For this unintentional error the Doctor is crucified, by the vengeful anger of the Patient or her survivors, the avarice of the plaintiffs' lawyer, the …

The Jury As Critic: An Empirical Look At How Capital Juries Perceive Expert And Lay Testimony, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

Why Civil Cases Go To Trial: Strategic Bargaining And The Desire For Vindication, Samuel R. Gross, Kent D. Syverud

Articles

When negotiations break down and a dispute cannot be settled, attorneys commonly blame their adversaries, often questioning their ethics or their judgment. After interviewing many attorneys, we have come to believe much of the criticism is directed at strategic moves in negotiation. But strategic ploys are not the only reason dispute resolution fails. Rather, our research also suggest that a genuine desire for vindication through trial or other formal process may be very significant in some types of cases where bargaining breaks down.

Going To Trial: A Rare Throw Of The Die, Samuel R. Gross, Kent D. Syverud

Articles

If it is true, as we often hear, that we are one of the most litigious societies on earth, it is because of our propensity to sue, not our affinity for trials. Of the hundreds of thousands of civil lawsuits that are filed each year in America, the great majority are settled; of those that are not settled, most are ultimately dismissed by the plaintiffs or by the courts; only a few percent are tried to a jury or a judge. This is no accident. We prefer settlements and have designed a system of civil justice that embodies and expresses …

Hoodwink'd By Custom: The Exclusion Of Women From Juries In Eighteenth-Century English Law And Literature, Judy Cornett

Scholarly Works

No abstract provided.