Law Commons^™

Punishing On A Curve, Adi Leibovitch

Northwestern University Law Review

Does the punishment of one defendant depend on how she fares in comparison to the other defendants on the judge’s docket? This Article demonstrates that the troubling answer is yes. Judges sentence a given offense more harshly when their caseloads contain relatively milder offenses and more leniently when their caseloads contain more serious crimes. I call this phenomenon “punishing on a curve.”

Consequently, this Article shows how such relative sentencing patterns put into question the prevailing practice of establishing specialized courts and courts of limited jurisdiction. Because judges punish on a curve, a court’s jurisdictional scope systematically shapes sentencing outcomes. …

Adverse Interests And Article Iii, Ann Woolhandler

Northwestern University Law Review

In an important article in the Yale Law Journal, James Pfander and Daniel Birk claim that adverseness is not required by Article III for cases arising under federal law. This Article takes the position that Pfander and Birk have not made the case for reconsidering adversity requirements for Article III cases. Adverseness may be present when there is adversity of legal interests, even when adverse argument is not present. From this perspective, a number of Pfander and Birk’s examples of non-contentious jurisdiction manifested adverseness. In rem-type proceedings such as bankruptcy and prize cases required the determination of adverse interests, …

Adverse Interests And Article Iii: A Reply, James E. Pfander, Daniel Birk

Northwestern University Law Review

Scholars and jurists have long sought an explanation for why the Framers of Article III distinguished “Cases” from “Controversies.” In a previous article that cataloged the exercise of federal jurisdiction over uncontested matters, such as pension claims, warrant applications, and naturalization proceedings, we tried to provide an answer to this question. We suggested that, at least as to “cases” arising under federal law, the federal courts could exercise what Roman and civil lawyers called non-contentious jurisdiction or, in the words of Chief Justice Marshall, could hear uncontested claims of right in the form prescribed by law. As for “controversies,” by …

Pro-Prosecution Doctrinal Drift In Criminal Sentencing, Margaret Truesdale

Northwestern University Law Review

Federal criminal sentencing doctrine is growing increasingly favorable to the prosecution. This Note identifies two factors that contribute to this “doctrinal drift.” First, district courts rarely issue written opinions in the sentencing context. Second, prosecutors, unlike defense attorneys, can strategically forego appeal in an individual case to avoid the risk that the lower court’s pro-defense reasoning will be affirmed and become binding precedent. In fact, 99% of all appeals of sentencing decisions are defense appeals. When defendants appeal pro-prosecution lower court decisions, the appellate court usually affirms, in part due to deference. The result is a one-sided body of case …