Judges Commons^™

First Amendment And Media Law Diversity Moot Court Competition, Roger Williams University School Of Law, Michelle Choate

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Sotomayor Cites Maurer Faculty Member In Scotus’ Decline To Hear Alabama Bite Mark Case, James Owsley Boyd

Keep Up With the Latest News from the Law School (blog)

The case of an Alabama man convicted of murdering his wife in 1985 will not be reviewed by the U.S. Supreme Court, despite evidence that, nearly 40 years later, has been “wholly discredited.”

The Supreme Court denied certiorari in the case of McCrory v. Alabama, but Justice Sonia Sotomayor cited research from Indiana University Maurer School of Law Professor Valena Beety in her concurring agreement with the court’s decision.

Charles M. McCrory was convicted for the murder of his wife, Julie Bonds, based in large part on expert testimony from an odontologist who matched McCrory’s teeth to two bite marks …

Filling The Red State Federal Judicial Vacancies, Carl Tobias

Texas A&M Law Review

District vacancies without nominees that plague red jurisdictions deserve emphasis in this Essay for several reasons. First, there are myriad district court jurists who trigger greater numbers of empty posts when they assume senior status, retire, or die, which triggers more issues. Legislators have created 677 active trial court positions, which dwarf the 179 active court of appeals judicial posts. The trial courts are tribunals of last resort for most cases; their numerous jurists are the only court members that many litigants encounter, and significantly more district court openings lack nominees. In contrast, appellate courts explicitly articulate considerable policy, include …

Schrodinger's Dissent: The Hybrid Authority Of A Dissenting Opinion, Christina Frohock

Articles

A dissenting opinion is the Schrodinger's cat of authorities: both the law and not the law simultaneously. Courts and scholars often clarify that a dissenting opinion is not binding. Outside the universe of precedent, that authority defies easy description. Emerging from the pen of a judge wearing a black robe and acting in an official capacity, a dissenting opinion exhibits the form of the law. Yet, beneath that lofty sheen, a dissent exhibits the substance of commentary. A dissenting judge writes to undercut the law, providing a case law coda. This Article describes the traditional categories of authority, primary and …

20th Annual Diversity Symposium Dinner 3-26-2024, Roger Williams University School Of Law

School of Law Conferences, Lectures & Events

No abstract provided.

Problems With Authority, Amy J. Griffin

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Judicial decision-making rests on a foundation of unwritten rules—those that govern the weight of authority. Such rules, including the cornerstone principle of stare decisis, are created informally through the internal social practices of the judiciary. Because weight-of-authority rules are largely informal and almost entirely unwritten, we lack a comprehensive account of their content. This raises serious questions—sounding in due process and access to justice—about whether judicial decision-making rests ultimately on judges’ arbitrary and unexamined preferences rather than transparent and deliberative processes. These norms of authority are largely invisible to many, including parties appearing before the courts. They govern the …

Courting Oblivion Part I: How To Predicate An Act Of Oblivion On The Right To Move On, Joshua J. Schroeder

Cleveland State Law Review

This is the opener of the three-part Courting Oblivion series on the legal concept of oblivion, meaning legal forgetfulness, letting go of the past, or forgiveness, usually to predicate a second chance, a restart, or even an era of reconstruction. This Article opens the Courting Oblivion series by demonstrating how blind-deaf concepts of justice are fundamentally ignorant of the rights and powers of oblivion. The series’ second and third parts will explain more about how acts of oblivion can secure governmental legitimacy and why oblivion needs to be enacted for whistleblowers generally.

This Article defines the legal concept of oblivion …

Beyond The Borders: The Rise Of Judicial Corruption And Universal Jurisdiction, Rose Mahdavieh

University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review

No abstract provided.

Washington Civil Jury Trials Via Zoom: Perspectives From The Bench, Marisa Pasnick

Washington Law Review

Many professions have felt the impact of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, including the legal field. At the onset of COVID-19, many courthouses closed and trials halted, but as the pandemic continued, the need to resume judicial proceedings led courts to turn to virtual platforms to conduct civil jury trials. This Comment examines the response of judges in Washington State to the use of Zoom for conducting civil jury trials. Interviews with judges across Washington reveal a stark contrast in opinions among judges in different districts as well as within districts. This Comment answers the question of how judges feel about …

Judicial Discipline Through The Prism Of Public Law Values: A Critical Analysis Of Bill C-9, An Act To Reform The Judges Act, Richard Devlin, Sheila Wildeman

Articles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press

Bill C-9 is the first legislative reform to the Judges Act in five decades. The goal of the legislation is to enhance public confidence in the administration of justice by modernizing the complaints and discipline system for federally appointed judges. In a previous essay published in Volume ?? of the Advocates’ Quarterly we offered a normative framework for assessment of a complaints and discipline system and identified seven key strengths of Bill C-9. In this sequel, we continue to apply this normative framework and argue that the legislation is marred by five significant weaknesses. We conclude that because the reforms …

Cover, Table Of Contents & Masthead, Mariam Antony

Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary

No abstract provided.

Egypt’S Legal Modernism: Challenging The National Discourse, Mohamed A. El-Deeb

Theses and Dissertations

Egypt’s legal modernity is the story of the modern Egyptian state itself. Reforming the country’s judiciary in the late nineteenth century was meant to achieve ambitious aims beyond the functionality of a justice system. The utmost goal was the country’s independence from the suzerainty of the Ottoman Empire. The judicial reforms modernized the Egyptian state and built a judiciary and legal community like no other place. Egypt achieved its independent judiciary before gaining its political independence. That was a remarkable achievement of the judicial reform. That rich part of Egypt’s modern history is negated and disregarded from public awareness. Not …

Houston, We Have A Problem: The D.C. Circuit Closes Pathway To National Judicial Review In Sierra Club V. Environmental Protection Agency, Alison O. Moyer

Villanova Environmental Law Journal (1991 - )

No abstract provided.

Judges Should Be Discerning Consensus, Not Evaluating Scientific Expertise, David S. Caudill, Harry Collins, Robert Evans

University of Cincinnati Law Review

One of the most constructive critiques of the Daubert admissibility regime is Professor Edward Cheng’s recent proposal for a new Consensus Rule in the Federal Rules of Evidence. Rejecting the notion that judges and juries have the capacity to evaluate scientific expertise, Cheng’s proposal would eliminate Daubert hearings—and judicial gatekeeping concerning expert testimony—and require judges and juries, in their verdicts, to follow consensus in the relevant scientific community. Significantly, Cheng argues that judges and juries would have an easier time identifying consensus than they have in deciding between experts who disagree.

We find Cheng’s emphasis on consensus compelling, and …

In Conversation About The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum’S New Mass Atrocity Prevention Training, Tatiana Varanko, Ann O’Rourke

Judicature International

No abstract provided.

Governance And Islam In East Africa: Muslims And The State In Kenya And Tanzania, Farouk Topan, Kai Kresse, Erin E. Stiles, Hassan Mwakimako

Exploring Muslim Contexts

Explores the relationship between Muslim communities and the State in East Africa in political, institutional and legal contexts

• Focuses on the relationship between Muslims and the State in Kenya and Tanzania
• Asks which factors, both within and outside the Muslim community, shape and affect this relationship in contemporary times
• Presents 13 case studies exploring governance issues within and across the categories of politics, institutions and law in Kenya and Tanzania
• Identifies cross-cutting issues of governance and Muslim communities which are relevant beyond East Africa

Recent studies of Muslims in Kenya and Tanzania have tended either to examine governance of Muslims …

Immoderate Moderation: Chief Justice Roberts's Concurrence In Dobbs, Thomas J. Molony

William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal

Chief Justice John Roberts attempted to chart a middle way in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. But there are times when you must choose a side. This was one of them.

The Chief Justice has been a consistent proponent of judicial restraint since he joined the United States Supreme Court in 2005. For him, one of the key characteristics of restraint is deciding no more than necessary to resolve a case. In Dobbs, he insisted that the Court did not need to overrule Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey in full to uphold Mississippi’s fifteen-week …

An Apt Analogy?: Rethinking The Role Of Judicial Deference To The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Post-Kisor, Amy Walker

Fordham Law Review

Since its inception in 1984, the U.S. Sentencing Commission (the “Commission”) has struggled to garner and maintain a sense of legitimacy among federal judges. The tension is both a story about competing expertise between judges and the Commission and competing values, namely uniformity and individuality. In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court in Stinson v. United States prioritized uniformity by telling lower courts to treat the Commission as they would any other administrative agency. Lower courts—for the most part—faithfully executed this directive until 2019, when the Supreme Court in Kisor v. Wilkie gave them another option, one that seemed to leave …

Amendment 80 And The Effects On Arkansas Supreme Court Elections, Sydney Kincaid

Political Science Undergraduate Honors Theses

In 2001, Amendment 80 was implemented into the Arkansas Constitution. One part of this Amendment was changing statewide judicial elections from being partisan to nonpartisan. This research project seeks to analyze the impact of Amendment 80 on Arkansas Supreme Court elections. The research considers how three components of elections have been impacted by the Amendment which are diversity of candidates, level of competition, and voter turnout. Data collection was conducted for all Arkansas Supreme Court elections from 2002-2022. The information that was collected includes election records as well as descriptive characteristics of candidates including race, gender, raw vote, opposed versus …

A Botched Procedure For Removing A High Court Judge: A Critique Of Joshua Ndipyola Banda V Attorney General 2022/Ccz/0010, O'Brien Kaaba

SAIPAR Case Review

The judiciary performs a key role in implementing the constitution and safeguarding constitutional order. Democracy cannot thrive when the judiciary is pliant. An independent judiciary is fundamental to constitutional democracy. Not only should judges be appointed in a transparent and credible manner, but their removal should insulate the judiciary from potential reprisals. Certainly, incompetent, and professionally unfit judges should have no place in the judiciary and judges who grossly misconduct themselves should be held accountable and in extreme cases, must be removed from office. However, how judges are removed has an impact on the autonomy of the judiciary. If the …