“The roughest form of social work:” How court officials justify bail decisions

Growing research has analyzed quantitative patterns of bail decisions and outcomes, but we know far less about how court officials justify their bail decisions. To enhance understanding of how bail decisions—and their resulting pretrial outcomes—are generated, we interviewed 104 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in a northeastern state. Court officials in our study reported three primary justifications at bail: ensuring defendants return to court, preventing crime, and lessening harm. The first two justifications have been suggested in the literature, but the latter is novel and encompasses two secondary justifications: lessening criminal legal system harm and lessening societal harm. We show how these justifications and the decisions they enable blend risk management with rehabilitation and emerge from court officials’ shared assumption of defendants’ social marginality but varied beliefs about what to do about such marginality pretrial. Each justification allows for distinct, but at times overlapping, bail decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of court official decision-making, research on racial and socioeconomic inequality, and bail reform policy.     

澳大利亚联邦法院对专家证据的采纳

I. Introduction
The opinion evidence of experts is an exception to the general rule that witnesses can only give evidence of that which they have seen or heard and may not give evidence of inferences which arise from their observations and from that which they have heard.     

中国“例制”构建中的法院角色和法官作用

我国案例指导制度中的法院角色和法官作用有着鲜明的特色,案件审理阶段法院和办案法官往往并没有参与案例指导的意识,而是在案件裁判后由审判庭之外的综合部门通过遴选的方式确定典型案例,经编辑后报审判委员会研究讨论,再逐级报最高人民法院确定并发布。指导性案例的产生不是按照管辖制度自然地"涌现",而是被人为地"发现",这一点明显不同于国外的做法。相比较,"涌现"方式符合司法经济原则和司法规律,而"发现"方式充满人为因素,成本高而效率相对较低。案例指导制度不应被管辖制度"牵着鼻子走",而应当通过变更管辖制度,与司法规律相适应。     

TRIAL COURTS' RESPONSES TO SUPREME COURT POLICY CHANGES

This is an exploratory study focusing on the response of federal district courts to Supreme Court changes in three policy areas: economic regulation, civil liberties, and criminal justice. An analysis of federal district court opinions published in the Federal Supplement before and after the Supreme Court decisions announcing the policy changes indicated that opinion-writing patterns of federal district judges changed in a manner consistent with the Supreme Court's new direction. Further study of the federal district courts' role in the policy process is recommended and suggestions for such research are made.     

India's Grand Advocates: a legal elite flourishing in the era of globalization

This article examines a flourishing group of elite litigators, that we call ‘Grand Advocates’, who practice before the Indian Supreme Court and some of India's High Courts. In a court system marked by overwhelmed judges with little assistance, multiplicity and blurriness of precedent, and by the centrality of oral presentation, the skills and reputational capital of these lawyers enables them to play a central, lucrative, and unique role. Indeed, it is often the Grand Advocates, as much as the judges, who lead and propel forward the Indian judicial system.     

Appellate Court Supervision in the Federal Judiciary: A Hierarchical Perspective

In this article, we examine factors that influence appellate supervision in the lower tiers of the federal judicial hierarchy. Drawing on the insights of agency theory, we develop a framework to assess the determinants of circuit panel decisions to affirm or reverse federal district court rulings. Our analysis of U.S. Courts of Appeals' published civil rights decisions over a 29-year period (1971–1999) offers support for several hypothesized relationships. As expected, the outcome of appellate review varied with the level of agreement between the preferences of the circuit (as principal) and the policy position of the trial court (as agent). In addition, we found that circuits were more likely to affirm trial court decisions that were contrary to the preferences of the federal district court judge, suggesting that circuit judges may rely on ideological signals when evaluating appeals before them. We also hypothesized that the monitoring activities of circuits would be influenced by individual circuits' relationship with their principal, the Supreme Court. Consistent with these expectations, panels were more likely to reverse district court rulings that were incongruous with the policy predisposition of the High Court. In addition, as Supreme Court scrutiny of a circuit increased, the likelihood of a circuit panel subsequently reversing a district court also increased. Although further inquiry is necessary to clarify the interpretation of this result, the finding does suggest that district courts are more likely to engage in decision making that deviates from circuit preferences when that circuit faces more intense supervision from the Supreme Court.     

Judges as therapists and therapists as judges: the collision of judicial and therapeutic roles in drug treatment courts

This paper explores the implications of the expansion of judicial and therapeutic roles in a drug treatment court (DTC) in Canada. Issues that are raised are: how the courtroom is framed as a therapeutic space where public appearances by participants are part of the therapeutic process; how judges have taken on therapeutic practices, effectively compromising their traditional role as neutral arbiter; how certain women resisted therapeutic interventions by judges and felt they received harsher punishments than men; and how treatment counselors in DTCs are given powers of enforcement over their clients. The collision of judicial and therapeutic roles in the DTC results in negative consequences for individuals in the specialized courts. Specifically, DTC participants are expected to engage in a therapeutic relationship with their treatment counselors and the court; however, their right to confidentiality is withheld, and their treatment counselors act as agents for the court.     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

Fear of Reversal as an Explanation of Lower Court Compliance

Lower courts in the United States are generally responsive to specific precedents and trends in the decisionmaking of their judicial superiors. In this article, we ask why. We test one popular explanation—that compliance can be attributed to judges' fear of having their decisions reversed—through an analysis of search and seizure cases decided in the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 1961 and 1990. Since the Supreme Court cannot reverse a decision unless it agrees to review it, we ask whether circuit judges are more likely to decide as the Supreme Court would be expected to when they face cases that are otherwise more likely to be reviewed by the Court. Finding that they are not, we conclude that fear of reversal cannot account for widespread circuit court compliance in these cases, nor, presumably, more generally. More broadly, our findings point to the importance of factors apart from supervisors and the threat of sanctions in determining subordinates' compliance.     

Understanding Culture in Kentucky's Courtrooms: An Essential Tool for Management and Long‐Range Planning

Though the “old conventional wisdom” explained delay as the product of too few resources and staff, the “new conventional wisdom” posits court efficiency is largely due to the cultural makeup of the court. Adapting the Court Culture Assessment Instrument developed by Dr. Ostrom and colleagues at the National Center for State Courts, this research study examines judicial perceptions of culture in the Kentucky Court of Justice general and family circuit court. Results indicate circuit courts are predominantly autonomous but desire to be more structured (hierarchical). In addition, bivariate analyses showed a significant, but weak, inverse relationship exists between perceptions of a predominantly hierarchical culture orientation and the presence of delay. In other words, judges who perceived their circuit to be predominantly hierarchical in nature were less likely to perceive delay as a problem.     

The Beginnings of Germany's Federal Constitutional Court

Abstract.   In this paper I take up aspects of the origins of the Constitutional Court of the Federal Republic of Germany, with special attention to the reasons for the aggregation of power and to the question of how far constitutional court models from abroad played a role in the development of the Court. Where the beginnings of the Federal Constitutional Court are concerned, the German tradition and the experience with the lawless regime of the national socialists played a fundamental role. To a certain degree the Austrian model and to a lesser degree that of the United States figured in the deliberations of Germany's post-War constitutional framers, too.     

Trans-Regional Courts in China: A Study of Establishment Models and Jurisdictional Rules

The trans-administrative regional (trans-regional) court was created as part of China’s judicial reforms in 2014. Thus far, only two trans-regional courts have been established, namely the Shanghai No. 3 and Beijing No. 4 Intermediate People’s Courts. An important reason for this slow pace is that the trans-regional court has transcended the current structural framework under the Organic Law of the People’s Courts in that (1) it is neither a specialized court that hears certain types of cases, (2) nor a local court established completely in keeping with administrative divisions. Therefore, the legal nature and status can only be clarified and justified when there is a clear definition of this new court system in the Organic Law of the People’s Courts. Several models, namely the independent set-up model, full reshuffling model and limited transformation model, have been proposed for the establishment of trans-regional courts. The most practical and efficient among these models is the limited transformation model, aiming to reconstruct the existing railway transportation courts. The trans-regional courts may have exclusive, alienage, or supplemental jurisdiction. Each form addresses particular types of special and major trans-regional cases, and other cases based on the theory of consolidation.     

HOW JUDGES THINK ABOUT RACIAL DISPARITIES: SITUATIONAL DECISION‐MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

Researchers have theorized how judges’ decision‐making may result in the disproportionate presence of Blacks and Latinos in the criminal justice system. Yet, we have little evidence about how judges make sense of these disparities and what, if anything, they do to address them. By drawing on 59 interviews with state judges in a Northeastern state, we describe, and trace the implications of, judges’ understandings of racial disparities at arraignment, plea hearings, jury selection, and sentencing. Most judges in our sample attribute disparities, in part, to differential treatment by themselves and/or other criminal justice officials, whereas some judges attribute disparities only to the disparate impact of poverty and differences in offending rates. To address disparities, judges report employing two categories of strategies: noninterventionist and interventionist. Noninterventionist strategies concern only a judge's own differential treatment, whereas interventionist strategies concern other actors’ possible differential treatment, as well as the disparate impact of poverty and facially neutral laws. We reveal how the use of noninterventionist strategies by most judges unintentionally reproduces disparities. Through our examination of judges’ understandings of racial disparities throughout the court process, we enhance understandings of American racial inequality and theorize a situational approach to decision‐making in organizational contexts.     

Use and Misuse of Language in Judicial Decision-Making: Russian Experience

In my paper I will analyze decisions of the Russian Constitutional Court and courts of general jurisdiction, in which they interpret ordinary and seemingly unambiguous words and phrases. In a number of cases this interpretation is made in a manner, which is suspect from a linguistic point of view. The analysis shows that there is no consistency in the application by Russian courts of the “plain language” rule and that literal interpretation may be used selectively as a means of legitimizing the decisions made on non-linguistic grounds. Though literal interpretation can be often incompatible with the concept of justice and therefore judges should also take into account other criteria, there are examples of court decisions, in which literal interpretation would have been more appropriate from the perspective of justice, separation of powers and human rights. The article shows how use and misuse of language by judges is employed as a tool in judicial decision-making.     

错误的生命之诉的法律适用

错误的生命之诉是近年来出现的一种新型诉讼。目前,法国、美国五个州的最高法院准许了原告就此提起的财产损害赔偿请求,而英国、美国19个州的最高法院、加拿大的两个省、德国联邦宪法法院均驳回了原告的损害赔偿请求。但实际上,全部或部分驳回原告方诉讼请求所持的理由并不成立,原告的确受到了侵害,受侵害的客体是拥有充分知情的父母的利益。     

Domestic judicial defiance and the authority of international legal regimes

Tensions and occasional overt defiance of international courts suggest that compliance with international regimes is not a self-evident choice for domestic judges. I develop a formal theory of domestic judicial defiance in which domestic and supranational judges vie for jurisprudential authority in a non-hierarchical setting. The model emphasises the role of domestic non-compliance costs and power asymmetries in determining the conduct of domestic and international judges. I argue that the EU represents a special case of a particularly effective international regime. Weak domestic courts have little to gain from an escalated conflict with the European court of Justice. But even domestic judicial superpowers like the German Federal Constitutional Court have strong incentives to seek mutual accommodation with European judges. The analysis also yields new insights into concepts, such as “judicial dialogue” and “constitutional pluralism” that have featured prominently in the legal literature, and suggests new hypotheses for empirical research.     

Rush-hour traffic: self-presentation of defendants in speedy traffic court cases

Much work examines self-presentation styles; however, little work explores how people present themselves in traffic court. Utilizing observatory research, we aim to better understand differences in physical presentation and demeanor in traffic court. Further, judges that work in traffic court were interviewed to see how they understood the importance of presentation of self. Data indicate that most of those who appear in traffic court aim to present themselves professionally and behave with respect while in court. This appears to be a wise decision because judges tended to think that presentation of self was an important variable in their courtroom and how they evaluated cases. Still, differences in presentation of self appeared in the courtroom especially with regard to dress – extremely casual to orange jumpsuits. Finally, we argue that while modern defendants aim to present professionally the overall ‘professional’ presentation of self, even in the courtroom, is casual dress.     

What Determines Judicial Prestige? An Empirical Analysis for Judges of the Federal Court of Australia

This article examines judicial citations to analyze the determinantsof judicial prestige in the Federal Court of Australia. Firstwe construct two alternative measures of judicial prestige forall current and retired judges of the Federal Court. Second,we regress these measures of judicial prestige on a series ofexplanatory variables covering age on appointment, appointinggovernment, prior experience, which law school the judge attended,how many law review articles the judge has published, gender,and tenure. We compare our results with those of previous studiesthat examine the determinants of judicial influence and prestigein courts in the United States and the High Court of Australia.One of the main contributions of the article is to provide evidencefrom an intermediate appellate court that can be used to testthe general application of findings as to what determines judicialprestige in the United States to courts in other countries withdifferent institutional frameworks.     

Judges as Readers,Authors and Dialecticians: Legal Interpretation in the EC<Emphasis Type="Italic">t</Emphasis>HR Cases on Mental Disability

The wording of major human rights texts—constitutions and international treaties—is very similar in those provisions, which guarantee everyone the right to family, privacy, protection against discrimination and arbitrary detention, and the right to access the court. However, judges of lower national courts, constitutional judges and judges of the European Court of Human Rights often read the same or seemingly the same texts differently. This difference in interpretation gives rise not only to disputes about the hierarchy of interpretative authorities, but to more general disputes about limits of judicial construction and validity of legal arguments. How it may happen, that the national courts, which apply constitutional provisions or provisions of national legislative acts, which are seemingly in compliance with the international human rights standards, come to different results with the international judges? Do they employ different interpretative techniques, share different values or develop different legal concepts? Do international judges ‘write’ rather than ‘read’ the text of the Convention? Who is, in Plato’s terms, a name-giver and who has a power to define the ‘correctness’ of names? The answers to these questions from the rhetorical and semiotic perspectives are exemplified by the texts of the judicial decisions on the rights of persons with mental disabilities.     

Lessons Learned from Developing a Trauma Consultation Protocol for Juvenile and Family Courts

Juvenile and family courts hold a unique position among the many stakeholders that comprise a healing community for persons experiencing adversity or trauma. Specifically, judges and other court leaders can promote the implementation of screening for trauma, the alignment of appropriate and effective treatment for trauma when indicated, and the accountability of systems for coordination and support of such services. To that end, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges undertook a field‐based project — consisting of multiple semi‐structured court surveys — to elucidate the key features of a trauma‐informed court and how to assist courts in becoming more trauma‐responsive for both consumers and staff. With the assistance of courts in 11 pilot sites across the nation, the project has led to the development of a protocol called trauma consultation or trauma audit, which is outlined here. Our work in developing the consultation protocol highlighted the need to better understand (1) the prevalence and impact of secondary traumatic stress in court staff, (2) the potential for environment to contribute to traumatic stress reactions, and (3) the importance of consistent trauma screenings and subsequent use of findings. Practical suggestions for courts to become more trauma‐informed are also provided.