Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases:

Those who champion the recruitment of minorities and women to the bench argue that black and female judges could bring about important policy changes. This study compared decision making by black and white and by male and female judges in sexual assault cases disposed of in Detroit Recorder's Court from 1976 to 1985. We found no racial differences and very few gender differences. The only exception was that female judges imposed longer prison sentences than did male judges. Considered together, the findings are indicative of the powerful influence of socialization on the legal profession and on the judicial role.     

Modeling Supreme Court Strategic Decision Making: The Congressional Constraint

This paper addresses the contradictory results obtained by Segal (1997) and Spiller and Gely (1992) concerning the impact of institutional constraints on the U.S. Supreme Court's decision making. By adapting the Spiller and Gely maximum likelihood model to the Segal dataset, we find support for the hypothesis that the Court adjusts its decisions to presidential and congressional preferences. Data from 1947 to 1992 indicate that the average probability of the Court being constrained has been approximately one‐third. Further, we show that the results obtained by Segal are the product of biases introduced by a misspecified econometric model. We also discuss how our estimation highlights the usefulness of Krehbiel's model of legislative decision making.     

Punitive Damage Decision Making: The Decisions of Citizens and Trial Court Judges

Some states have allocated the authority to determine the amount of punitive damages to judges rather than to juries. This study explored the determination of damages by jury-eligible citizens and trial court judges. The punitive damage awards of both groups were of similar magnitude and variability. The compensatory damages of jurors were marginally lower but, in some conditions, were more variable than the compensatory damage awards of judges. Both groups appropriately utilized information about both the actual and potential severity of the harm to the plaintiff in determining punitive damages and used only the actual severity of the injury in determining compensatory damages. The punitive damage awards of both groups were influenced by the wealth of the defendant, but the compensatory damage awards of judges were marginally more influenced by defendant wealth than those of citizens. The results are discussed in the context of proposals for punitive damages reform.     

北京高院2009年知识产权十大案例解析

北京市高级人民法院知识产权庭日前发布的2009年知识产权十大案例,涉及面广,包括了4件商标侵权及不正当竞争案、3件著作权侵权案、2件专利侵权案和1件计算机软件著作权侵权案。通过对这些个案进行解析,并阐释相关法律问题,对知识产权案件的审判工作起到一定的示范和参考作用,对相关社会公众则具有一定的导向和指引意义。     

Group Differences in Fairness Perceptions and Decision Making in Voting Rights Cases

Participants recruited from one Historically Black University (HBU) and two predominantly White higher-education institutions evaluated and decided simulated voting rights case summaries in which the plaintiff was either a racially-defined (African American) or a nonracially-defined (farmers) minority group. Contrary to social identity and social justice findings of an in-group bias, the present study showed greater support at all institutions for the voting rights of the African Americans than for the rural farmers, and the greatest support for both minority groups was found at the HBU. Perceived evidence strength was a better predictor of decisions than perceived unfairness, and both of these predictor variables completely mediated the effects of institution-type and involvement of a racially-defined group on decisions.     

U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Case Salience, and the Attitudinal Model

Does case salience condition the role of ideological preferences in the decisions of U.S. Supreme Court justices? Does the attitudinal model of judicial behavior hold equally true in high salience and low salience cases? In this article, we analyze the role of case salience as a moderating influence on the explanatory capacity of the attitudinal model and test the strength of the model in high salience versus low salience contexts. Using civil rights votes during forty‐seven Supreme Court terms, from 1953 through 2000, we find that the attitudinal model is sensitive to case salience and that justices rely significantly more on ideological preferences when deciding high salience cases than low salience ones. Our findings represent an important qualification to the attitudinal model.     

The Tort Remedy in Search and Seizure Cases: A Case Study in Juror Decision Making

Civil suits for damage awards against police officers alleged to have engaged in illegal searches have long been suggested as an alternative to the exclusionary rule as a remedy for police misconduct. A review of empirical literature on the incidence and outcomes of such suits suggests that defendant officers often prevail and that the awards do not seem large enough to produce the punishment and deterrence effect often claimed by proponents of the tort remedy. Using an experimental technique involving simulated trials and adults called for jury service as subjects, we examine the effects of two procedural aspects of such suits on juror awards. The extent of municipal liability and the substitution of the U.S. government as plaintiff do not appear to affect the incidence or size of compensatory or punitive damage awards. Denying jurors information about the outcome of the search does appear likely to increase damage awards. The article both explores factors affecting juror decision-making in these cases and illustrates the utility and limitations of the experimental method for testing suggested policy innovations.     

最高人民法院关于修改《最高人民法院关于仲裁司法审查案件报核问题的有关规定》的决定(法释[2021]21号)

根据审判实践需要,经最高人民法院审判委员会第1850次会议决定,对《最高人民法院关于仲裁司法审查案件报核问题的有关规定》作如下修改:一、将第三条修改为:“本规定第二条第二款规定的非涉外涉港澳台仲裁司法审查案件,高级人民法院经审查,拟同意中级人民法院或者专门人民法院以违背社会公共利益为由不予执行或者撤销我国内地仲裁机构的仲裁裁决的,应当向最高人民法院报核,待最高人民法院审核后,方可依最高人民法院的审核意见作出裁定。”     

Juror Perceptions of the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities and Decision Making in Criminal Cases

Literature on trust in legal authorities and institutions demonstrates that trust affects individual behavior, yet there is little research on whether attitudes toward legal authorities such as the police or courts influence juror behavior as a third party assessing evidence and determining legal outcomes for others. Additionally, the literature on juror decision making confirms that juror race is an important predictor of juror decisions, but explanations for differences among racial groups are not clear. Since minority groups hold less favorable attitudes toward legal authorities generally, legitimacy theory may help explain racial differences in decision making among jurors. Using data from nearly 2,000 jurors in felony trials, this research utilizes multilevel modeling techniques to find that jurors' trust in legal authorities is related to juror outcomes, though the effect of juror trust and confidence in the police is opposite that of juror trust and confidence in the courts. Additionally, juror race conditions the effect of trust in police and courts. Trust is a stronger predictor of both perceptions of evidence and voting for black jurors than it is for white jurors.     

Decision Making in Delinquency Cases: The Role of Race and Juveniles' Admission/Denial of the Crime

Investigated how accused delinquents' admission/denial of their crimes affected adjudication and disposition decisions. An archival analysis of 2,043 adjudication decisions in 16 Georgia counties found that juveniles who admitted committing their crimes were treated more severely than juveniles who denied committing their crimes. Whites were more likely than Blacks to admit committing the crime, and, after controlling for this and other legal factors, race did not have a significant effect. In the second study, 67 judges, 53 probation officers, and 126 court service workers made adjudication and disposition decisions about three juveniles in an experimental simulation in which race of juvenile, length of prior record, and the juvenile's reaction to the crime (admitting or denying it) were systematically manipulated. Consistent with the archival study, juveniles who admitted committing their offense were treated more severely than juveniles who denied committing their offense. Possible reasons are discussed for why admitting a crime leads to more punishment.     

最高人民法院关于修改《最高人民法院关于审理食品药品纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》的决定(法释〔2021〕17号)

根据《中华人民共和国药品管理法》,最高人民法院审判委员会第1850次会议决定对《最局人民法院关于审理食品药品纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》作如下修改:将第十二条修改为:“食品检验机构故意出具虚假检验报告,造成消费者损害,消费者请求其承担连带责任的,人民法院应予支持。食品检验机构因过失出具不实检验报告,造成消费者损害,消费者请求其承担相应责任的,人民法院应予支持。”     

论处断刑的立法模式

在刑罚裁量中,德国、日本刑法以及我国台湾、澳门刑法都规定了处断刑,希望通过处断刑架构起法定刑通向宣告刑的桥梁.立法者通过处断刑的规定,不仅可以有效地控制法官的刑罚裁量权,还能指引法官寻找一个比较适当的量刑幅度,并在该量刑幅度内找到与犯罪相适应的具体的刑罚点.但德国、日本刑法与我国台湾、澳门刑法在处断刑的立法模式上存在着一些差异,前者采取总则式立法,后者采取总则与分则相结合式立法,二者对我国量刑规则的改造均具有启发意义.     

Court Practice in Issuing Special Findings on Criminal Cases

A most important responsibility of the Soviet court, deriving from the Party Program, is the reinforcement of socialist legality, the prevention and uprooting of crime, and the education of citizens in the spirit of unswerving execution of Soviet laws and respect for the rules of the socialist community.     

Psychological Injuries and Legal Decision Making in Civil Cases: What We Know and What We Do not Know

Civil plaintiffs frequently seek monetary compensation for their psychological injuries. Despite the increased study of psychological injury within the legal system, there has been little empirical examination of how psychological injury evidence impacts legal decisions. To illuminate what is known (and not known) on this topic, this paper reviews legal and empirical research regarding how legal decision makers (judges and jurors) perceive and use psychological injury evidence to render civil judgments. A few themes emerged from this review: (1) Courts generally devalue psychological injury, often making it difficult for plaintiffs to pursue and succeed on these claims; (2) these difficulties are a likely byproduct of legal decision-makers’ misperceptions of mental illness; and (3) despite a recent surge in empirical research on how jurors perceive and use psychological injury evidence to render civil decisions, many unexplored areas remain. Specific recommendations for legal policy and suggestions for future research are highlighted throughout this review.     

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Politics? Harmonizing the Internal and External Views of Supreme Court Decision Making

Law professors and political scientists generally subscribe to opposed theories of Supreme Court decision making. Law professors, to a great degree, adhere to an internal view: Supreme Court justices decide cases according to legal rules, principles, and precedents. Political scientists follow an external view: justices decide cases according to their political ideologies or preferences. This article develops an interpretive-structural theory that harmonizes these seemingly opposed views. This interpretive-structural theory not only explains why the internal and external views often are both effective but also why, sometimes, one approach might be more effective than the other. The article concludes by comparing the interpretive-structural theory with the "new institutionalism" that is emerging in political science.