Judges Commons^™

Rwu Law: The Magazine Of Roger Williams University School Of Law (Issue 9) (2016), Roger Williams University School Of Law

RWU Law

No abstract provided.

From Principles To Rules: The Case For Statutory Rules Governing Aspects Of Judicial Disqualification, Jula Hughes, Philip Bryden

Osgoode Hall Law Journal

The common law “reasonable apprehension of bias” test for judicial disqualification is highly fact- and context-specific. While there are good reasons for this approach as a general proposition, it also gives rise to considerable uncertainty for both judges and litigants in considering whether or not it is appropriate for a judge to sit in a marginal case. This article explores statutory judicial disqualification regimes in the United States, Germany, and Quebec to gain insights into how statutory rules can be employed to provide greater clarity to judges and litigants who are addressing situations that have the potential to give rise …

A Brook With Legal Rights: The Rights Of Nature In Court, Hope M. Babcock

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Over two decades ago, Professor Christopher Stone asked what turned out to be a question of enduring interest: should trees have standing? His question was recently answered in the affirmative by a creek in Pennsylvania, which successfully intervened in a lawsuit between an energy company and a local township to prevent the lifting of a ban against drilling oil and gas wastewater wells. Using that intervention, this Article examines whether such an initiative might succeed on a broader scale. The Article parses the structure, language, and punctuation of Article III, as well as various theories of nonhuman personhood to see …

Judicial Disqualification And Recusal In Criminal Cases, Edward L. Wilkinson

St. Mary's Journal on Legal Malpractice & Ethics

The United States Supreme Court has recognized circumstances in which the probability of judicial bias requiring disqualification or recusal is “too high to be constitutionally tolerable.” At the same time, the Texas Constitution contains a number of provisions barring a judge from presiding over a case under specific circumstances, while statutes and procedural rules either disqualify a judge or require him or her to be recused. Thus, whether a particular judge may preside over a given criminal case may be questioned under the Due Process Clause, the Texas Constitution, statue, or the rules of procedure. This Article will examine the …

When Scalia Wasn't Such An Originalist, Michael Lewyn

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Founding Fathers Said I Am Not Subject To Term Limits, Elias Arroyo

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Land Use Consultations Advancing Therapeutic Jurisprudence: Ripe For Clinical Trials, Michael N. Widener

Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution

This paper proposes educating law students in the processes of therapeutic justice through service as a neutral in land use controversies, and in the process, improving law student dispute resolution skills and enabling them to promote therapeutic outcomes.

The Comparative Outputs Of Magistrate Judges, Christina L. Boyd

Scholarship@WashULaw

Do federal magistrate judges make different decisions and produce distinct judicial outputs from district judges? To provide initial empirical evidence on this question, this study utilizes federal district court data covering issue areas including employment discrimination, broader civil rights, intellectual-property rights, and personal-injury torts. The data indicate that magistrate judges are actively involved in civil cases, with as many as sixty-seven percent of cases having one or more magistrate judges serving in some role. These magistrate judges commonly preside over settlement conferences, decide discovery motions, issue reports and recommendations on dispositive motions, preside over status, management, and scheduling conferences, and …

Friend Request Denied: Judicial Ethics And Social Media, Shaziah Singh

Journal of Law, Technology, & the Internet

"Social media sites such as Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn have revolutionized our social lives and dominate the way we communicate with each other. Whether it comes to personal or professional use, social media platforms come with a multitude of complications. What to post, whom to “friend,” whom to share information with, and what job updates to share are just some of the problems social media users face daily. These complications are only multiplied for judges. A judge’s unique position to influence makes what constitutes acceptable social media usage much more complex. With almost 1.5 billion users on Facebook and 300 …

Issue 2: Table Of Contents

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

A Tribute To Judge Kaye, Nicholas W. Allard

Brooklyn Law Review

This collection of remarks from scholars, practitioners, and judges serves as a tribute to the life of the beloved and esteemed Judge Kaye and her commitment to the New York State Constitution. The collection culminates with Judge Kaye’s final essay, written for the Brooklyn Law Review, with her reflections on opportunity in life and law and New York’s State Constitution.

A Cautionary Look At A Cautionary Doctrine, Andrew W. Fine

Brooklyn Journal of Corporate, Financial & Commercial Law

Optimism is an indispensable element of effective salesmanship. It is therefore quite natural for the directors of public companies to want to optimistically tout the potential long-term benefits of investing in their companies. After all, directors of public companies must be empowered to attract the attention and money of American investors. But what happens if these long-term projections fail to come true? Who is to blame for long-term projections that are simply unrealistic? A doctrine called the “bespeaks caution” doctrine has emerged in order to govern these inquiries, and holds that these optimistic forward-looking statements are legally immunized provided that …

Parsing The Behavioral And Brain Mechanisms Of Third-Party Punishment, Owen D. Jones, Matthew Ginther, Richard J. Bonnie, Morris B. Hoffman, Francis X. Shen, Kenneth W. Simons, Rene Marois

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The evolved capacity for third-party punishment is considered crucial to the emergence and maintenance of elaborate human social organization and is central to the modern provision of fairness and justice within society. Although it is well established that the mental state of the offender and the severity of the harm he caused are the two primary predictors of punishment decisions, the precise cognitive and brain mechanisms by which these distinct components are evaluated and integrated into a punishment decision are poorly understood.

Using a brain-scanning technique known as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), we implemented a novel experimental design to …

Taking Dignity Seriously: Excavating The Backdrop Of The Eighth Amendment, Meghan J. Ryan

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

The U.S. punishment system is in turmoil. We have a historically unprecedented number of offenders in prison, and our prisoners are serving longer sentences than in any other country. States are surreptitiously experimenting with formulas for lethal injection cocktails, and some prisoners are suffering from botched executions. Despite this tumult, the Eighth Amendment of our Constitution does place limits on the punishments that may be imposed and how they may be implemented. The difficulty, though, is that the Supreme Court’s Eighth Amendment jurisprudence is a bit of a mess. The Court has been consistent in stating that a focus on …

Scalia On Abortion: Originalism... But, Why?, Robert Cassidy

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

An Empirical Research Agenda For The Forensic Sciences, Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

After the National Academy of Sciences issued a stunning report in 2009 on the unscientific state of many forensic science subfields, forensic science has undergone internal and external scrutiny that it had managed to avoid for decades. Although some reform efforts are underway, forensic science writ large has yet to embrace and settle upon an empirical research agenda that addresses knowledge gaps pertaining to the reliability of its methods. Our paper addresses this problem by proposing a preliminary set of fourteen empirical studies for the forensic sciences. Following a brief discussion of the courtroom treatment of forensic science evidence, we …

Decision Making And The Law: Truth Barriers, Jonathan J. Koehler, John B. Meixner Jr.

Scholarly Works

Reaching an accurate outcome is a central goal of the American trial. But structural features of the legal system, in combination with the cognitive shortcomings of legal actors, hinder the search for truth. Regarding the legal system, various rules and policies restrict decision makers’ access to evidence, violate the laws of probability, and limit the evidentiary concerns that may be considered on appeal. Regarding legal actors, informational deficits (particularly regarding scientific and statistical evidence) and cognitive biases of police investigators, witnesses (lay and expert), attorneys, judges, and jurors pose serious obstacles. We conclude by suggesting that research in judgment and …

Achieving Sex-Representative International Court Benches, Nienke Grossman

All Faculty Scholarship

Twenty-five years ago, in this Journal, Hilary Charlesworth, Christine Chinkin, and Shelley Wright argued that the structures of international law “privilege men.”1 As shown in Table 1, which summarizes data from a forthcoming article, on nine of twelve international courts of varied size, subject-matter jurisdiction, and global and regional membership, women made up 20 percent or less of the bench in mid 2015.2 On many of these courts, the percentage of women on the bench has stayed constant, vacillated, or even declined over time.3 Women made up a lower percentage of the bench in mid 2015 than in previous years …

Differentiating Deference, Anya Bernstein

Journal Articles

When an administrative agency’s interpretation of an ambiguous statutory term is challenged in court, the Chevron doctrine instructs judges to evaluate whether it is reasonable. But how does a court know reasonableness when it sees it? Here, I first show that reasonableness review is more complex than it might seem. Contrary to common images, for instance, courts do not determine a range of reasonable interpretations; and that is a good thing, because they are not competent to do so. Moreover, because traditional statutory interpretation approaches presume the existence of one correct meaning for a given word, they are not well …

The High Power Of The Lower Courts, Doni Gewirtzman

Other Publications

No abstract provided.