Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons™
Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Adaptive deficit (1)
- Atkins (1)
- Bias (1)
- Bias blind spot (1)
- Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (1)
-
- Catch-all rule (1)
- Chief Justice Castille (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Diagnosis (1)
- Diagnostic standards (1)
- Disqualification (1)
- Ex Parte Briseno (1)
- Fair trial (1)
- Fair tribunal (1)
- Federal Due Process Clause (1)
- Formalists (1)
- Hall v. Florida (1)
- Intellectual disability (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judicial recusal rules (1)
- Jurists (1)
- Legal realists (1)
- Medical expert (1)
- Melinda A. Marbes (1)
- Mental health professional (1)
- Per se rule (1)
- Presumption of judicial impartiality (1)
- Psychology expert (1)
- Public confidence in the judiciary (1)
- Recusal (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Social and Behavioral Sciences
Texas, The Death Penalty, And Intellectual Disability, Megan Green
Texas, The Death Penalty, And Intellectual Disability, Megan Green
St. Mary's Law Journal
Abstract forthcoming
Reforming Recusal Rules: Reassessing The Presumption Of Judicial Impartiality In Light Of The Realities Of Judging And Changing The Substance Of Disqualification Standards To Eliminate Cognitive Errors, Melinda A. Marbes
St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics
In recent years, high profile disqualification disputes have caught the attention of the public. In each instance there has been an outcry when a presiding jurist was asked to recuse but declined. Unfortunately, even if the jurist explains his refusal to recuse, the reasons given often are unsatisfying and do little to quell suspicions of bias. Instead, litigants, the press, and the public question whether the jurist actually is unbiased and doubt the impartiality of the judiciary as a whole. This negative reaction to refusals to recuse is caused, at least in part, by politically charged circumstances that cause further …