Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.     

Safeguarding Access to Justice in the Age of the Online Court

In 2016 Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service embarked on a significant modernisation programme with a view to developing online courts. In pursuit of this ambition the Courts and Tribunals (Online Procedure) Bill seeks to introduce new procedural rules to govern the online jurisdiction, giving the Lord Chancellor and an Online Procedure Rule Committee the power to mandate which proceedings will be conducted online and what assistance will be provided to users. In this study we analyse survey data and case decisions to highlight the importance of channel plurality and digital support in light of the shift to online courts. Our findings identify the groups most at risk of digital exclusion, and the expectations the judiciary sets in relation to internet access, capability, and the design of online systems. We conclude by detailing what our findings mean for safeguarding access to justice in the digital age.     

Detained: A Study of Immigration Bond Hearings

Immigration judges make consequential decisions that fundamentally affect the basic life chances of thousands of noncitizens and their family members every year. Yet, we know very little about how immigration judges make their decisions, including decisions about whether to release or detain noncitizens pending the completion of their immigration cases. Using original data on long‐term immigrant detainees, I examine for the first time judicial decision making in immigration bond hearings. I find that there are extremely wide variations in the average bond grant rates and bond amount decisions among judges in the study sample. What are the determinants of these bond decisions? My analysis shows that the odds of being granted bond are more than 3.5 times higher for detainees represented by attorneys than those who appeared pro se, net of other relevant factors. My analysis also shows that the detainees' prior criminal history is the only significant legally relevant factor in both the grant/deny and bond amount decisions, net of other relevant factors. This finding points to the need for further research on whether and how immigration courts might be exercising crime control through administrative proceedings.     

Hearing the Voice of the Child: Current Practice in Family Courts in Germany

German family courts have a long‐standing tradition of hearing the child's voice when proceedings affect the child. This article aims to provide an overview of the German procedural rules. The current role and practice of child hearings in family courts and the direct effects on the child are discussed in detail. The perceived benefits, challenges, and pitfalls are deliberated from the viewpoint of the psychological expert. Hearing the voice of the child in person is increasingly viewed as beneficial to the proceedings if the judges and other professionals involved possess the necessary qualifications and competence.     

Criminal defendants' satisfaction with lawyers: perceptions of procedural fairness and effort of the lawyer

At present, procedural justice theory has predominantly been used to explain defendants' satisfaction with the police, courts and prisons. It is unclear to what extent this theory is also applicable to lawyers. This study investigates to what extent (1) criminal defendants are satisfied with their lawyers and (2) procedural fairness characteristics and the effort of the lawyer are related to defendants' satisfaction with their lawyers. Data from the Prison Project were used: a large-scale research project among Dutch criminal defendants (N = 1479). Results suggest that generally, Dutch defendants are very satisfied with their lawyers. Variation in defendants' satisfaction with their lawyers can be attributed for a substantial part to procedural fairness characteristics.     

Equal access to justice

Conclusion My concerns are unlikely to strike a note amongst those senior judges delivering “big justice” who will operate in the multi-track. They seldom encounter disabled people in their courts and when they do access, communication and representation problems are likely to have been sorted out at an earlier stage. But for those of us who have to deal with those earlier stages or are to (and already do) deliver “bulk justice” in the fast track and small claims courts, coping with disabled litigants is already a problem. Hitherto we have responded with insufficient care to their needs, but is it too late to hope that we may be encouraged (or better still constrained) to take into account their disclosed needs when managing cases so that civil proceedings may be conducted in a manner that is fair to all. If we do not face up to this now we could find ourselves and our courts in breach of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 which is intended to impose the new culture on society (including our courts). The message from society is clear: a change in the culture of civil justice is required but we must not overlook the “disability factor”. A District Judge at Preston on the Northern Circuit.     

美国刑事诉讼中的“排除合理怀疑”

美国刑事案件的证明标准是排除合理怀疑。该标准现在是一个被广泛接受的标准，但该标准源于何时，理解上存在一定的争议。该标准在美国刑事诉讼中处于什么样的地位，不同的人观点并非完全一致。法官是否应当在给陪审团的指示中明确该标准的定义，不同的学者理解上有分歧，法院间的做法也有差异。在定义该标准时，有三种方式。对于“合理怀疑”的解读通常采用同义词“道德确信”加解释。对于是否应当量化排除合理怀疑标准，法律界也有不同的意见和方式。     

Offenders' lies and truths: an evaluation of the Supreme Court of Sweden's criteria for credibility assessment

Abstract

The criteria used by Swedish courts for assessing credibility of plaintiffs' accounts were for the first time scientifically evaluated. Furthermore, unlike much previous deception detection research, we used offenders as participants instead of college students. False and truthful confessions by 30 offenders were analysed, and few significant effects were obtained. Truthful confessions were rated as having a higher degree of clarity than false confessions. Women's truthful confessions were rated as more credible than their false confessions. The offenders who were most experienced in being interviewed by the police gave a stronger impression of talking about something self-experienced in their false than in their truthful confessions; hence, it seems that offenders with more police interview experience have developed a kind of expertise in telling a convincing lie about crime. Overall, the criteria for credibility assessment used by Swedish courts had very limited usefulness in discriminating truthful and false confessions. A critique of the current status of evaluating statements in Swedish courts is provided.     

Efficient,Fair, and Incomprehensible: How the State “Sells” Its Judiciary

Socio‐legal scholars often approach dispute resolution from the perspective of the disputants, emphasizing how the resources on each side shape the course of conflict. We suggest a different, “supply‐side,” perspective. Focusing on the state's efforts to establish centralized courts in place of local justice systems, we consider the strategies that a supplier of dispute resolving services uses to attract disputes for resolution. We argue that state actors often attempt to “sell” centralized courts to potential litigants by insisting that the state's services are more efficient and fair than local courts operating outside direct state control. Moreover, we argue that state actors also invest significant energy in claiming that the local courts are incomprehensible. Thus, in its efforts to introduce and advance centralized courts, the state argues not only that it offers the best version of what the citizenry wants, but also that it is impossible to conceive that people would want something other than what the state offers. We illustrate our argument and explain its significance by examining judicial reform in New York, where there has been a decades‐long effort to displace local justice systems.     

Responses to Salduz: Procedural Tradition,Change and the Need for Effective Defence

This article examines the responses of national courts to the ECtHR's decision in Salduz v Turkey that suspects be provided with access to a lawyer before they are first interrogated by the police. It argues that harmonious application of human rights standards in criminal proceedings should build upon common values underpinning the procedural traditions of member states. ECtHR success in gaining acceptance for the principle of access to a lawyer during police interrogation, anchoring it in the privilege against incrimination, is contrasted with resistance towards giving the defence any active role during criminal investigations. It is argued that this resistance can be overcome by an appeal to safeguards that have long dominated the trial process. As the investigation phase increasingly determines the outcome of criminal proceedings, standards of fairness traditionally reserved for the trial process should be applied also to this phase in order to provide suspects with an effective defence.     

Is the Process the Only Punishment?: Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Lower-Level Courts

Although misdemeanors make up the bulk of criminal cases in the United States, the majority of research on court decision-making examines felony sentencing. In contrast to felony courts, lower-level courts are characterized by higher case volumes and increased reliance on informal sanctions, which may contribute to greater racial–ethnic disparities. To assess this possibility, we examine pretrial detention and case processing outcomes for misdemeanants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Utilizing temporal (detention time) and monetary (bond amount) measures of pretrial detention, we assess whether and to what extent there are racial–ethnic disparities in formal and informal sanctions facing misdemeanants. Results indicate that black defendants, especially black Latinx defendants, face greater informal sanctions (longer detention and higher bond amounts), are more likely to be convicted, and experience more severe formal sanctions than do white non-Latinx defendants. These findings complicate Feeley's (1979) argument about lower-level cases, revealing that black defendants are punished by both the court process and formal sanctions. In this way, “the process is the punishment” for lower-level white and nonwhite defendants, while the punishment is also the punishment for black defendants.     

Habeas Corpus as <Emphasis Type="Italic">Jus Cogens</Emphasis> in International Law

For hundreds of years procedural rights such as habeas corpus have been regarded as fundamental in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence. In contemporary international law, fundamental norms are called jus cogens. Jus cogens norms are rights or rules that can not be derogated even by treaty. In the list that is often given, jus cogens norms include norms against aggression, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. All of the members of this list are substantive rights. In this paper I will argue that some procedural rights, crucial for the fair functioning of criminal proceedings, such as habeas corpus, should also have the status of jus cogens norms. I will begin by explaining what it means for a right to have jus cogens status. And I will follow this with a defense of having procedural rights like habeas corpus added to the list of jus cogens norms. I will then rehearse some of the debates about the jus cogens status of procedural rights in the European Commission on Human Rights. At the end of this paper, I will look at the attempts to deal with the abuses at Guantanamo by the American Commission on Human Rights, and by the US and Australian courts, as a way to understand why there needs to be a stronger support for habeas corpus than is today provided by regional courts.     

The Journalist in the Courtroom

"Proceedings in all courts shall be open to the public." Such is the content of Article 157 of the Constitution of the USSR. The principle that judicial proceedings are to be open to the public—a principle that is contained in the nation's highest legislative act—is of enormous practical significance. The fact that judicial proceedings are open to the public is a guarantee that procedural norms are scrupulously observed in the process of examining the materials of a case, thereby substantially reducing the probability of judicial error. It goes without saying that the further improvement of social oversight over the work of law enforcement agencies is a necessary condition to the democratization of public life. What is more, the openness of judicial proceedings to public scrutiny is a powerful means for the legal education of citizens and of forming a truly socialist legal conscience.     

Argument from Expert Opinion as Legal Evidence: Critical Questions and Admissibility Criteria of Expert Testimony in the American Legal System*

Abstract. While courts depend on expert opinions in reaching sound judgments, the role of the expert witness in legal proceedings is associated with a litany of problems. Perhaps most prevalent is the question of under what circumstances should testimony be admitted as expert opinion. We review the changing policies adopted by American courts in an attempt to ensure the reliability and usefulness of the scientific and technical information admitted as evidence. We argue that these admissibility criteria are best seen in a dialectical context as a set of critical questions of the kind commonly used in models of argumentation.     

BREAKING DOWN BUSINESS VALUATION: THE USE OF COURT‐APPOINTED BUSINESS APPRAISERS IN DIVORCE ACTIONS*

This Note advocates for greater reliance on court‐appointed business appraisers in divorce proceedings. After exploring the history of court‐appointed experts in American jurisprudence and addressing the specific problems that arise when valuing a business, this Note demonstrates how neutral business appraisers can assist courts in assessing a highly technical matter while simultaneously providing both courts and parties with an accurate, reliable source of information. The Note further provides suggestions for when the appointment of a neutral appraiser may be beneficial. The second section of this Note addresses technical matters that the court must deal with in selecting a reliable expert, including where the court derives its power to appoint a neutral expert, what standards the court should use in appointing the expert, and who should pay the cost of the expert's appointment.     

Gault's Promise Revisited: The Search For Due Process

Fifty years ago, due process was introduced into the juvenile courts, but today children still do not have the guiding hand of counsel at every stage of the proceedings. In assessing the pre‐Gault world, Chief Justice Fortas observed that “[a] child receives the worst of both worlds:…he gets neither the protections accorded to adults nor the solicitous care and regenerative treatment postulated for children.” 1 Fortas opined that “Then as now good will and compassion were admirably prevalent. But recent studies have entered with surprising unanimity, sharp dissent to the vitality of this gentle conception. They suggest that the appearance as well as the actuality of fairness‐ impartiality and orderliness‐ in short the essentials of due process may be a more therapeutic attitude so far as the juvenile is concerned.” 2 The prescience of his observation has found resonance and reinforcement with the 2013 publication of Reforming Juvenile Justice: A Developmental Approach 3 which was commissioned by the Office of Juvenile Justice Delinquency and Prevention (OJJDP). Reforming Juvenile Justice's emphasis on encouraging not only the perception but the actuality of fairness in all domains 4 connects directly to the essence of Gault's message. “Treating youth fairly and ensuring that they perceive that have been treated fairly and with dignity contribute to positive outcomes in the normal processes of social learning, moral development, and legal socialization adolescence.” 5 The research also demonstrates that public health oriented alternatives to traditional court processing promote social connection and positive youth development. 6 The OJJDP report provides a road map for promoting positive youth development and social engagement by demonstrating that supporting such policies improves public safety outcomes by reducing recidivism. In exploring whether Gault's promise of due process has been realized or is still aspirational, this article suggests that our inquiry requires us to think contextually by considering how children and families are treated in and out of the courtroom. This entails consideration of educational, child welfare and mental health services, as well as the scope of legal entitlements. Equity and fundamental fairness, euphemisms for due process, are what will truly effectuate Gault's promise and should be the benchmark for all courts and systems that engage with children.     

Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

Teen Court: What Jurors Can Tell Us About the Process

Teen courts are on the increase throughout the United States. These courts provide an opportunity for youth offenders to receive sentences from their adolescent peers rather than from an adult panel or judge. Yet, we know t very little about the teen jurors' perspective or whether their sentences reflect restorative justice principles. In more than 100 youth juror surveys, t teens describe their experiences as they develop sentences consistent with restorative justice tenets. Through their participation, youth jurors gain practical knowledge about and respect for the judicial system. The efficacy of the sentences is validated by high offender sentence completion.     

Making an Impact on Juvenile Delinquents: An Approach to Victim Impact Statements that Everyone Can Embrace

The use of victim impact statements occurs in the majority of states' juvenile court proceedings. Many victims' rights advocates celebrate the use of these statements as a valuable means of victim empowerment, as victim impact statements allow victims to convey the personal effects that delinquent acts had on their lives directly to the courts. Yet at the same time, many oppose the use of victim impact statements in juvenile courts because they inhibit judges' ability to focus on delinquent juveniles' rehabilitative needs by infusing the victims' feelings and emotions into the disposition‐crafting process. This article suggests that a balance can be struck between these competing concerns by incorporating victim impact statements into the rehabilitative programs prescribed in the dispositions of delinquent youths, instead of using the statements as an influencing force in crafting the dispositions.