Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs

This article describes citations of social science research evidence in 200 criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court and in the briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae in these cases. It also examines the uses of social science authorities in samples of Supreme Court exclusionary rule and jury decisionmaking cases, and accompanying briefs. The correspondence between the social science references cited in the decisions and the briefs is used as one measure of the brief-writers' contributions to the Court's use of social science materials, and related contributions of the brief-writers are explored, as well. The justices appeared to locate the majority of social science references cited in their opinions without assistance from the briefs, and thus also presumably attempted to evaluate the research evidence on their own. Individuals and organizations with scientific expertise rarely filed amicus briefs in these cases, which may help explain why the Court so frequently was without assistance in locating or examining research evidence. It is suggested that the appellate judiciary's informed use of social science materials would be promoted if more social scientists, and their professional organizations, participated as amici curiae in cases presenting social fact issues within their competence.     

South African Supreme Court rules on copyright in software and computer-generated works

The South African Supreme Court of Appeal considers a numberof fundamental issues concerning copyright protection of computerprograms and computer-generated works; in doing so, the courtanalyses a number of basic copyright principles, notably themeaning of originality and the meaning of ‘substantialtaking’ in infringement cases.     

French Supreme Court rules fashion shows protected by copyright--what about the UK?

The French Court of Cassation has held that fashion shows canbe protected by copyright.     

Court Order No, 4, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,March 18, 1963

A review of the practice in recovering court expenditures [raskhody] in civil cases and court costs [izderzhki] in criminal cases has demonstrated that courts do not always observe the laws in effect with regard to this matter, that they commit significant errors. Frequently, in accepting the filing of suits and appeals in civil cases, courts do not exact payment of the state fee provided by law, or else they determine it inaccurately. They do not always take into consideration the fact that expenditures caused the court in connection with the trial and the state fee, from which a plaintiff has been exempted, are to be recovered from the respondent for the state in proportion to the satisfied portion of the claim in the suit. In violation of Article 45 of the RSFSR Code of Civil Procedure and the corresponding articles of the civil procedural codes of the other union republics, many courts do not demand that the parties make advance payment of the sums needed to meet the costs of calling witnesses and experts, as well as the expenditures involved in on-site examinations.     

The French Supreme Court clarifies the rules governing remuneration of contributors to a collective work

The proportional remuneration principle which governs copyrightassignment by the author does not apply to the contributorsto a collective work, therefore allowing lump-sum remuneration.     

Court Order No. 3, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,March 18, 1963

Having heard and discussed the reports of the Chairman of the RSFSR Supreme Court, Comrade L. N. Smirnov, the Chairman of the Lithuanian Supreme Court, Comrade A. L. Likas, and the Chairman of the Criminal College of the USSR Supreme Court, Comrade G. Z. Anashkin, on the fulfillment by the judiciary of the USSR Supreme Court Plenum's Order No. 6 of September 12, 1961, and having examined materials summarizing the practice of the courts in cases involving antisocial parasitic elements, the Plenum of the USSR Supreme Court takes note that the judiciary of the RSFSR, Lithuania and other union republics have recently somewhat improved their consideration of such cases, and have begun to apply more correctly the legislation on intensifying the struggle against persons refraining from socially useful labor and engaging in an antisocial and parasitic way of life.     

Court Order No. 7, USSR Supreme Court Plenum,July 3, 1963

A decree of the Presidium of the USSR Supreme Soviet of February 15, 1962, "On Increasing Responsibility for Attacks on the Life, Health, and Dignity of Militia and Volunteer Public-Order Personnel," established responsibility for malicious failure to obey a legal order or demand of militia and volunteer public-order personnel, for insulting them, for resistance to them, and for the use of force and threats against such persons. The decree also increased the criminal responsibility for attacks on the lives of militia and volunteer public-order personnel in conjunction with their official or volunteer duties in the maintenance of public order.