Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Accountability (1)
- Concur (1)
- Dissent (1)
- Gorsuch (1)
- Grand Jury (1)
-
- Grand Jury Secrecy (1)
- Harlan (1)
- Indict (1)
- Judicial philosophy (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Language (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Neutrality (1)
- Nomination Hearings (1)
- Plurality (1)
- Police Violence (1)
- Police Violence Visibility (1)
- Policing (1)
- Precedent (1)
- Racial Justice (1)
- SCOTUS (1)
- Social Justice (1)
- Supreme Court Confirmation Hearing (1)
- Supreme Court of the United States (1)
- Technology (1)
- Transparency (1)
- Visibility (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Visibly (Un)Just: The Optics Of Grand Jury Secrecy And Police Violence, Nicole Smith Futrell
Visibly (Un)Just: The Optics Of Grand Jury Secrecy And Police Violence, Nicole Smith Futrell
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Police violence has become more visible to the public through racial justice activism and social justice advocates’ use of technology. Yet, the heightened visibility of policing has had limited impact on transparency and accountability in the legal process, particularly when a grand jury is empaneled to determine whether to issue an indictment in a case of police violence. When a grand jury decides not to indict, the requirement of grand jury secrecy prevents public disclosure of the testimony, witnesses, and evidence presented to the grand jury. Grand jury secrecy leaves those who have seen and experienced the act of police …
The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro
The Language Of Neutrality In Supreme Court Confirmation Hearings, Carolyn Shapiro
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
At Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation hearing, then-Judge Gorsuch repeatedly insisted that judging involves no more than examining the legal materials—like statutes and precedents— and applying them to the facts of the case. There is, he emphasized, no room for a Justice’s “personal views,” and he refused even to state his agreement (or disagreement) with such iconic cases as Loving v. Virginia and Griswold v. Connecticut. Instead, then Judge Gorsuch reiterated only that they were precedents of the Court and thus entitled to respect. Frustrating as his answers may have been to some senators, however, they differed from answers given …