Courts Commons^™

Popular Dissatisfaction With Judicial Restraint-Do Americans Really Want An Independent Judiciary?, Michael S. Greco

Indiana Law Journal

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators Annual Meeting July 29-August 2, 2006 Indianapolis, Indiana.

The Ncsc Sentencing Attitudes Survey: A Report On The Findings

Indiana Law Journal

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court Administrators Annual Meeting, July 29-August 2, 2006, Indianapolis, Indiana

"Administration Of Justice Is Archaic"-The Rise Of Modern Court Administration: Assessing Roscoe Pound's Court Administration Prescriptions, Sue K. Dosal, Mary C. Mcqueen, Russell R. Wheeler

Indiana Law Journal

Note. This is a heavily edited and partially reorganized version of the CC/COSCA panel on "The Rise of Modem Court Administration. " In it, Sue Dosal and Mary McQueen assess three changes advocated by Pound in respect to the organization of courts, based on their experiences as state court administrators in Minnesota and Washington, and their familiarity with court administration in other states. Russell Wheeler introduced the session, posed the questions, and was primarily responsible for editing, annotating, and partially reorganizing the panel transcript, which Dosal and McQueen edited as well.

Conference of Chief Justices and Conference of State Court …

Reparations, Social Reconciliation, And The Significance Of Place: A Legal And Philosophical Examination Of Indigenous Cases In The United States And Their Global Implications, Jill M. Fraley

Scholarly Articles

During genocide, populations are frequently displaced from their homelands. In the process of reparations, displacement is often viewed as a problem of shelter, food, and safety. In this framework, land is treated as an economic commodity—any given piece of land is interchangeable with another or for money. This approach is a product of Enlightenment thinking, which emphasizes the rights of the individual over communal rights to land, and conceptualizes land and social identity as strongly separated. This Enlightenment framework of rights, and the accompanying de-emphasis of place, is particularly strong in the United States. Because American legal principles have played …

Politics Of Deference And Inclusion: Toward A Uniform Framework For The Analysis Of ‘Fundamental Alteration’ Under The Ada, Kerri Lynn Stone

Faculty Publications

In 2001, a disabled professional golfer prevailed in his claim to use a golf cart on the PGA Tour in the Supreme Court case of PGA Tour, Inc. v. Martin. While the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) mandates that essential and reasonable accommodations be made for plaintiffs like Martin, it does not require any actions that would fundamentally alter the nature of a defendant’s “goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations.” This article surveys federal opinions that undertook the fundamental alteration query posed by Titles II and III of the ADA in the five years since Martin was decided, and …

Nebraska Probation Revocation: A Primer (2007 Revision), Alan G. Gless

State of Nebraska Judicial Branch

The law of probation revocation developed rapidly over the eighteen years preceding this article’s 1989 appearance. While its development has slowed substantially since then, it continues to evolve. The overall field of Nebraska probation revocation remains essentially unchanged from the way it was in 1989 when this article first appeared. The case law has neither burgeoned dramatically nor altered the scenery in major ways, although, it has added a few refinements. But important procedural and substantive wrinkles have appeared through 2003 statutory amendments to the steps probation officers must take in responding to probationers’ violations of the conditions of their …

The Protection Of Religious Freedom Under The American Constitution, Robert A. Sedler

Law Faculty Research Publications

No abstract provided.

The Principled Exception And The Forgotten Criterion, Steve Coughlan

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

The principled exception to the hearsay rule is routinely described as being settled by the "twin criteria" of necessity and reliability. In fact a third criterion is also — or at least ought to be — at play: that admitting the evidence through hearsay would not undermine any other rule of evidence. The Court has made reference to this third criterion in the past, but it has largely been ignored in both Supreme Court and lower court decisions. The recent judgement in Couture depends in a limited way on that question, and so it marks an opportunity to articulate the …

The D'Oh! Of Popular Constiutitonalism, Neal Devins

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

A Constitutional Significance For Precedent: Originalism, Stare Decisis, And Property Rights, Polly J. Price

Faculty Articles

The discussions in this Article proceed as follows. Part I briefly introduces several areas of contemporary debate for which this inquiry is relevant. In Part II, I examine previous scholarly evaluations of the doctrine of precedent in the formative period. I provide an alternative explanation for the adoption by American courts of rhetoric favoring stare decisis, one that links the rhetoric used by these courts with the predominant property discourse of the Founding period and with the Marshall Court’s subsequent emphasis on vested rights and the Contracts Clause. I suggest that the stare decisis property rule gained widespread acceptance as …

But Can It Be Fixed? A Look At Constitutional Challenges To Lethal Injection Executions, Ellen Kreitzberg, David Richter

Faculty Publications

This article argues that California's Procedure 770 as currently implemented is unconstitutional. Judge Fogel, after an exhaustive review of evidence from all parties,agrees. Although Judge Fogel believes that the lethal injection system, while broken "can be fixed," we argue that lethal injection, as a method of execution, is always unconstitutional because the procedures employed in its administration can never ensure against unnecessary risk of pain to the inmate. We also argue that the California legislature must step in to publicly review lethal injection executions and to investigate the conduct of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) in the …

An Overview Of The October 2005 Supreme Court Term, Erwin Chemerinsky

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

What Statutes Mean: Interpretive Lessons From Positive Theories Of Communication And Legislation, Cheryl Boudreau, Arthur Lupia, Mathew D. Mccubbins, Daniel B. Rodriguez

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Is Lilly Written Description Paper Tiger?: Comprehensive Assessment Of The Impact Of Eli Lilly And Its Progeny In The Courts And Pto, Christopher M. Holman

Faculty Works

In University of California v. Eli Lilly, decided by the Federal Circuit in 1997, the court established for the first time a new form of patent law's written description requirement, apparently targeted specifically at biotechnology. To this day, the conventional wisdom is that the so-called Lilly written description requirement (LWD) exists as a biotechnology-specific super-enablement requirement, substantially more stringent than the enablement requirement (the conventional standard for patentability), and standing as an impediment to effective patent protection for biotechnology inventions. My objective in writing this article was to test this conventional wisdom, by conducting a comprehensive search for all LWD …

Crawford And Davis: A Personal Reflection, Richard D. Friedman

Articles

I have to say that when I stood up to argue Hammon I felt the wind at my back. I was basically a lawyer with an easy case, and there wasn't anything particularly unpredictable at the argument of Hammon. Now it got a little bit interesting, as I will explain later, because to a certain extent I was trying to argue the other case as well. But Hammon itself was sort of ordinary, normal law.

The Puzzle Of Complete Preemption, Gil Seinfeld

Articles

Part I introduces the central themes in the law of federal question jurisdiction. It describes the prevailing interpretations of the constitutional and statutory texts governing the federal courts' jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes involving questions of federal law, and it explores the reasons for the establishment of such jurisdiction. This Part also introduces the well-pleaded complaint rule and examines the reasons for its adoption by the Supreme Court. Part II provides a detailed account of complete preemption doctrine, under which parties are permitted to usher state-law claims into the federal courts despite the apparent absence of any federal question on the …

Beyond Mitigation: Towards A Theory Of Allocution, Kimberly A. Thomas

Articles

THE COURT: I don't think I have time to listen .... I am not going to reexamine your guilt or innocence here. That is not the purpose of a sentence.. THE DEFENDANT: I did not have the chance to tell you .... THE DEFENDANT: But, your Honor, listen to me-1 Should the court hear this defendant? Is the story of innocence relevant at allocution-the defendant's opportunity to speak on his or her own behalf at the sentencing hearing prior to the imposition of sentence? Or, is the purpose of allocution something different, as the judge suggests? The answers depend on …

Structural Reform In Criminal Defense: Relocating Ineffective Assistance Of Counsel Claims, Eve Brensike Primus

Articles

This Article suggests a structural reform that could solve two different problems in criminal defense representation. The first problem is that the right to effective trial counsel lacks a meaningful remedy. Defendants are generally not permitted to raise ineffective assistance of counsel claims until collateral review. Given that collateral review typically occurs years after trial, most convicted defendants have completed their sentences by that time and therefore have little incentive to pursue ineffectiveness claims. Moreover, there is no right to counsel on collateral review, and it is unrealistic to expect defendants to navigate the complicated terrain of an ineffectiveness claim …

A Gambling Paradox: Why An Origin-Neutral 'Zero-Quota' Is Not A Quota Under Gats Article Xvi, Donald H. Regan

Articles

In US-Gambling, the Appellate Body held that an origin-neutral prohibition on remote gambling (which is how they mostly viewed the United States law) was "in effect" a "zero-quota", and that such a "zero-quota" violated GATS Article XVI:2. That holding has been widely criticized, especially for what critics refer to as the Appellate Body's "effects test". This article argues that the Appellate Body's "in effect" analysis is not an "effects test" and is not the real problem. The real mistake is regarding a so-called "zero-quota" as a quota under Article XVI. That is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the word …

The Supreme Court And The Federal Circuit: Visitation And Custody Of Patent Law, Rebecca S. Eisenberg

Articles

The U.S. Supreme Court’s relationship to patent law sometimes seems like that of a non-custodial parent who spends an occasional weekend with the kids. The custodial parent is, of course, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Courts Improvement Act of 1982 consolidated intermediate appellate jurisdiction over patent law cases in this single court, which hears appeals from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”), the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, and the U.S. In-ternational Trade Commission. Day to day it is the Federal Circuit that reviews contested decisions of the institutions …

Original Understanding And The Whether, Why, And How Of Judicial Review, William Michael Treanor

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

For more than one hundred years, legal scholars have endlessly and heatedly debated whether judicial review of federal legislation was part of the original understanding of the Constitution. The stakes of the debate are high. If judicial review was part of the original understanding, then there is a strong argument that the practice is grounded in the majority’s will, just as the Founders’ Constitution is. But if it is not—if, as Alexander Bickel and others have claimed, judicial review was a sleight-of-hand creation of Chief Justice Marshall in Marbury v. Madison—then judicial review is either counter-majoritarian or else must …

Early Panel Announcement, Settlement And Adjudication, Samuel P. Jordan

All Faculty Scholarship

Federal appellate courts have significant discretion to set the internal policies that govern the appeals process, and they have used that discretion to institute policies designed to combat increasing caseloads. This Article takes a close look at one such policy: early announcement of panel composition in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. In stark contrast to every other circuit, the D.C. Circuit announces panel composition to litigants in civil appeals well in advance of oral argument, and it does so at least in part to encourage settlement and control the court's workload. This Article concludes that although there are indications …

Deliberative Dilemmas: A Critique Of Deliberation Day From The Perspective Of Election Law, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

My paper deals with two subject areas - deliberative democracy theory and election law - that have had surprisingly little contact with another. My paper tries to remedy this lacuna by looking at how the two fields intersect and can contribute to the understanding of one another. In particular, I look in detail at a particularly prominent proposal by two political theorists, Bruce Ackerman and James Fishkin's Deliberation Day, and how the aims of that proposal might be frustrated by the present structure of American election law. I argue that because they fail to take into account certain structural features …

Charter Dialogue Revisited: Or "Much Ado About Metaphors", Peter W. Hogg, Allison A. Bushell Thornton, Wade K. Wright

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

This article is a sequel to the 1997 article "The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures (Or Perhaps The Charter of Rights Isn't Such A Bad Thing After All)." In the present article, the authors review various academic critiques of their "dialogue" theory, which postulates that Charter decisions striking down laws are not the last word, but rather the beginning of a "dialogue," because legislative bodies are generally able to (and generally do) enact sequel legislation that accomplishes the main objective of the unconstitutional law. The authors also examine the Supreme Court of Canada's dicta on the "dialogue" phenomenon, and …

China's Courts: Restricted Reform, Benjamin L. Liebman

Faculty Scholarship

Recent developments in China’s courts reflect a paradox largely avoided in literature on the subject: Can China’s courts play an effective role in a non-democratic governmental system? Changes to courts’ formal authority have been limited, courts still struggle to address basic impediments to serving as fair adjudicators of disputes, and courts continue to be subject to Communist Party oversight. Courts have also confronted new challenges, in particular pressure from media reports and popular protests. At the same time, however, the Party-state has permitted, and at times encouraged, both significant ground-up development of the courts and expanded use of the courts …

The Mcmartin Preschool Abuse Trial, Douglas O. Linder

Faculty Works

The McMartin Preschool Abuse Trial, the longest and most expensive criminal trial in American history, should serve as a cautionary tale. When it was all over, the government had spent seven years and $15 million dollars investigating and prosecuting a case that led to no convictions. More seriously, the McMartin case left in its wake hundreds of emotionally damaged children, as well as ruined careers for members of the McMartin staff. No one paid a bigger price than Ray Buckey, one of the principal defendants in the case, who spent five years in jail awaiting trial for a crime (most …

A Necessary And Proper Role For Federal Courts In Prison Reform: The Benjamin V. Malcolm Consentdecrees, Harold Baer Jr., Arminda Bepko

NYLS Law Review

No abstract provided.

The International Criminal Tribunal For Rwanda As The Theater: The Social Negotiation Of The Moral Authority Of International Law, Maya Steinitz

Faculty Scholarship

The international criminal courts (ICCs) - the ad hoc International Criminal Tribunals for the Former-Yugoslavia and for Rwanda, the recently-established permanent International Criminal Court, and hybrid internationalized tribunals such as the Special Court for Sierra Leone - are the international community's attempt to address the worst of the criminal manifestations of racism, nationalism and large-scale xenophobia. Based on five months of ethnographic research at the international criminal tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), analyzed using Erving Goffman's dramaturgical framework, this article examines the means through which moral authority is constructed and communicated by the ICTR. Specifically, the article advances the argument that …

The Aggregate Harmony Metric And A Statistical And Visual Contextualization Of The Rehnquist Court: 50 Years Of Data, Peter A. Hook

Articles by Maurer Faculty

This article contains aggregated data from fifty years of the annual matrixes of justice inter-agreement for particular Supreme Court terms published by the Harvard Law Review (1956 to 2005 terms). Aggregating how often any two justices sided together on cases for a particular term relative to the amount of cases the two justices heard together allows one to derive a measure of the particular term that reflects the relative amount of agreement or disagreement for the term. This new metric, called the Aggregate Harmony Metric, allows for comparative benchmarks. For instance, the 2005 term, with an aggregate agreement of 70%, …

Scholarly Discourse, Public Perceptions, And The Cementing Of Norms: The Case Of The Indian Supreme Court And A Plea For Research, Jayanth K. Krishnan

Articles by Maurer Faculty

For economic and nuclear reasons, India has received considerable attention over the last decade from observers in the United States. But attuned Americans are well-aware of India's rich culture and status as a shining constitutional democracy for most of its post-1947 independent history. For all that India has accomplished, however, its public has long viewed its government officials with great disdain. At the same time, a fascinating norm exists in this society which holds one institution in exceedingly high regard - the Indian Supreme Court.

In this article, I seek to examine what accounts for this counter-intuitive norm. As opposed …