Felony voir dire

The practice of voir dire has a venerable history in the United States. However, despite numerous historical and legal discussions of the topic, and the increased participation of social scientists in the process, few empirical studies have been conducted on what actually occurs during voir dire. The lack of normative data is especially troublesome in the face of recent attacks on the process itself and numerous proposals to drastically limit or even prohibit what many regard as an important criminal justice safeguard—attorney-conducted voir dire in felony trials. This exploratory study attempts to provide some insight into the nature and content of felony voir dire. Our results—based on direct observation as well as juror interview responses—suggest that much of the criticism and calls for drastic reform may be misplaced.     

The Disposition of Felony Arrests

While we know a great deal about the disposition of felony arrests that reach the trial stage, we know little about the details of the dispositions reached without trial. And yet, this latter category forms as a rule over 90 percent, in New York City 98 percent, of all dispositions. Basing his analysis on a study done in the early 1970s, the author describes and presents data on the various stages in the process from arrest to final disposition through plea bargaining, trial, or dismissal of the case. For the first time, this usually opaque disposition pattern prior to trial emerges in the clarity of 23 graphs that illustrate the analysis. Of particular interest are some new insights into the mechanism of the plea bargaining process.     

Optical Characterization of Some Modern “Eco‐Friendly” Fibers*

Abstract: Fibers that are termed “eco‐friendly” or “biodegradable” by manufacturers are increasingly being used in textile products such as apparel and carpeting to appeal to the ever more environmentally aware public. As such, these modern fibers are expected to begin showing up more often in forensic casework, and it is important that the forensic examiner recognize them. This study employed polarized light microscopy (PLM) and Fourier transform infrared (FTIR) microspectroscopy to characterize selected fibers of azlon, polylactic acid (PLA), cellulose composites of alginate or chitin, and bamboo (viscose rayon). Fiber cross‐sections, refractive indices, melting points, solubilities, and FTIR measurements were conducted. Results indicate that the azlons and PLA fibers are easily distinguishable from other textile fibers by their optical and chemical properties. The cellulose composites show only small differences in comparison with other cellulose‐based fibers, while bamboo viscose rayon is indistinguishable from normal viscose rayon.     

The Utility of the Samworth and Gowland Age‐at‐Death “Look‐up” Tables in Forensic Anthropology*

Abstract: Accurate age‐at‐death estimates are crucial to forensic anthropologists when onstructing biological profiles aimed at narrowing a missing‐persons list and to allow for timely and efficient identification of an unknown victim. The present contribution evaluates the utility of three new age‐at‐death estimation techniques recently proposed by Samworth and Gowland (2007). Results indicate that, in the samples under study, the Samworth and Gowland estimates from the pubic symphysis and auricular surface perform similar to alternate phase methods. The combined method does not appear to further enhance either the precision or the accuracy of the single pubic symphysis age‐at‐death estimate. In conclusion, these new methods seem to be more robust to distribution deviations than originally proposed by Samworth and Gowland (2007). They are therefore suitable for immediate and reliable forensic usage in the United States and worthy of further research for their use in North American forensic contexts.     

The Biggest “Have” of Them All: Wal‐Mart and Its Litigation Outcomes in Slip‐and‐Fall Cases

Scholars have theorized that resource‐rich litigants known as the “haves” tend to succeed disproportionately in litigation when the adverse party is a “have‐not.” The traditional theory suggests that haves are able to use their wealth to secure better attorney representation and can use their frequent experience in litigation to tip the scales of justice in their favor, particularly when faced with “one‐shotters” whose involvement in litigation is infrequent. A remaining question, however, is whether some haves fare better than other similarly situated haves. Specifically, this article posits that the litigation strategy used by the defendant may also play a role in litigation outcomes. Companies that tenaciously fight claims that, in the short term, would be cheaper to settle might discourage otherwise valid claims in the future from being filed out of fear that the litigation will be a protracted battle. This article examines Wal‐Mart Stores, Inc. (Wal‐Mart)—the largest revenue‐generating company in the United States—to explore whether it fares better than other resource‐rich defendants. Wal‐Mart in particular has a reputation against settling cases and thus is an excellent vehicle to investigate this hypothesis. Appellate cases in an eleven‐year period involving slip‐and‐fall litigation were compiled, and the results show that Wal‐Mart did win at a higher rate than other defendants. Although more research is needed to explore fully the effect of litigation strategy on win–loss rates, this sample of cases demonstrates that Wal‐Mart is a more effective and victorious litigant.     

“Impossible Families”: Mixed‐Citizenship Status Couples and the Law

This article explores the complex and contradictory relationship between citizenship in the law and the immigrant reality of mixed‐citizenship family life through in‐depth interviews with individuals in mixed‐citizenship marriages. An examination of mixed‐citizenship marriage exposes the inadequacies of approaching citizenship as an individual‐centered concept. The data indicate that, though both immigration and citizenship laws focus on the individual, the repercussions of those laws have family‐level effects. Because of their spouses' immigrant status, many citizens are obliged by the law to live the immigrant experience in their own country or to become immigrants themselves.     

A Vision of Social‐Legal Change: Rescuing Ehrlich from “Living Law”

The hundredth anniversary of the original publication of Eugen Ehrlich's Fundamental Principles of the Sociology of Law is nearly upon us. The book earned high praise from Oliver Wendell Holmes, Roscoe Pound, and Karl Llewellyn as one of the outstanding works of its time. Ehrlich has been identified as an early legal realist, a pioneering figure in legal sociology, and a leading theorist of legal pluralism. In this retrospective review, I explain the strengths and weaknesses of this classic book. Ehrlich articulated an unsurpassed account of dynamic social‐legal change, an account that remains fresh and timely today.     

建立中国轻罪制度的理论选择——以劳动教养为范例的分析

一、问题及其意义 1987年,劳动教养立法就列入了我国的“七五”立法规划,1991年和1995年又分别被列入我国的“八五”立法规划和“九五”立法规划。司法部劳动教养管理局、原国务院法制局和全国人大为劳动教养法的出台,做了大量艰苦细致的工作。但劳教立法十多年的实践已经证明,劳动教养立法最为缺乏的是有力的理论支撑。虽然,从表面上看,劳动教养法典起草过程中,遇到的最主要和最棘手的问题是有关部门权力和利益的分配与协调。实质上,这些问题如果不首先从理论上即学理上给予说明,就会导致在立法上,不     

Asking the Sovereignty Question in Global Legal Pluralism: From “Weak” Jurisprudence to “Strong” Socio‐Legal Theories of Constitutional Power Operations

The article examines recent theories of legal and constitutional pluralism, especially their adoption of sociological perspectives and criticisms of the concept of sovereignty. The author argues that John Griffiths's original dichotomy of “weak” and “strong” pluralism has to be reassessed because “weak” jurisprudential theories contain useful sociological analyses of the internal differentiation and operations of specific legal orders, their overlapping, parallel validity and collisions in global society. Using the sociological methodology of legal pluralism theories and critically elaborating on Teubner's societal constitutionalism, the author subsequently reformulates the question of sovereignty as a sociological problem of complex power operations communicated through the constitutional state's organization and reconfigured within the global legal and political framework.     

Gender Differences in Felony Court Processing:

Interactive analyses examined three related hypotheses of disparity. The typicality hypothesis proposes that women are treated with chivalry in criminal processing, but only when their charges are consistent with stereotypes of female offenders. Selective chivalry predicts that decision makers extend chivalry disproportionately to white females. Differential discretion suggests that disparity is most likely in informal decisions such as charge reduction rather than in formal decisions at final sentencing. Data for the analysis derived from 9,966 felony theft cases and 18,176 felony assault cases disposed in California in 1988. Gender disparity was evident in findings that females with no prior record were more likely than similar males to receive charge reductions, and this enhanced females' chances for probation. The only indication of selective chivalry was a greater tendency to change charges of assault to nonassault among white female defendants than among minority females. Pivotal decisions concerning charge reduction provided partial support for the notion of differential discretion. The findings provided no clear support for the typicality thesis.     

“Bending” Evidence for a Cause: Scholar‐Advocacy Bias in Family Law

There are a number of salient public policy issues in the family law field that have invoked impassioned policy debates on a recurrent basis. In the absence of a body of research to address these critical concerns, advocates under the guise of social science scholarship have exacerbated the confusion and controversy by construing the scant available research evidence to justify their own ends, without regard to the relevance, quality, utility, and limitations of the studies. This is one of two articles on this problem that we have named “scholar‐advocacy bias.” In this article, we discuss the difference between truth in social science and truth in law. We identify common ways in which social science researchers and reviewers of research—wittingly or unwittingly—can become advocates for ideological positions and social policies at the expense of being balanced reporters of research evidence as illustrated by recent debates about overnight parenting of infants and toddlers. We also consider how adherence to established scientific principles and methods prevents the misuse of research in this way.