Posts tagged as:

judges

Sinking deeper into substance abuse, a prominent Tennessee judge spins ever further out of control. How long does it take before he’s removed and the public alerted to his problem? Way too long for comfort [Knoxville News Sentinel]

The defense says a new trial is warranted by an Ontario judge’s advice to jurors that the presumption of innocence “is only defeated if, and when, Crown counsel has satisfied you beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Guilty – I’m sorry, that Mr. Wilson – is guilty of the crime charged.” [Globe and Mail]

Trying cases in the press

by Walter Olson on December 2, 2011

Yes, media coverage does affect the outcome of court cases, and here are some of the ways [Andrew Trask]

The disclosure of a Pennsylvania judge’s email to interested parties in a politically charged redistricting case may have stalled his hopes for advancement to the federal bench. [The Legal Intelligencer]

{ 1 comment }

A Kentucky judge’s colorfully worded order is grist for my latest post at Cato.

{ 2 comments }

“… that a lawyer’s participation makes judicial proceedings more fair, not less fair.” So should we be shocked that the U.S. Supreme Court does not partake of this article of faith? [earlier on Turner v. Rogers and Civil Gideon] Related: Are we sure we want judges who are “great lawyers”? [Chiang, Prawfs, Greenfield]

{ 3 comments }

“Philly judges tell reporter he can’t take notes in court” [Legal NewsLine]

April 19 roundup

by Walter Olson on April 19, 2011

  • Environmental milestone? “Bolivia is set to pass the world’s first laws granting all nature equal rights to humans.” [JoNova via Coyote]
  • Add another to the list of judges who file suits over critical discussion of their rulings, in this case by the losing party, a newspaper [ABA Journal]
  • “Obama on presidential signing statements then … and now” [Bainbridge, Outside the Beltway]
  • “The never-ending stream of futile petitions suggests that habeas corpus is a wasteful nuisance.” [Joseph Hoffmann and Nancy King, NYT, via Lat, Frank] A different view: Scott Greenfield, The Briefcase.
  • Global warming suits “a misuse of the judiciary branch” [Laurence Tribe, Boston Globe via WLF]
  • Competing for the HuffPo reader? On link between chemical exposures and cancer, Salon.com perpetrates “utter nonsense” [Orac, Respectful Insolence]
  • Iqbal/Twombly: “Reports of pleading’s demise may have been exaggerated” [Wasserman, Prawfs]

{ 4 comments }

“…And wretches hang that jurymen may dine.” And now there’s even empirical evidence. (h/t Sam S.)

{ 1 comment }

A review copy arrived recently and I’ve much enjoyed reading the first chapters. It’s discussed by Larry Ribstein, by Glenn Reynolds, and by Cato’s Dan Mitchell (with special reference to the problem of tax complexity). The publisher’s description:

Virtually all American judges are former lawyers. This book argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law. There are many reasons for this bias, some obvious and some subtle. Fundamentally, it occurs because – regardless of political affiliation, race, or gender – every American judge shares a single characteristic: a career as a lawyer. This shared background results in the lawyer-judge bias. The book begins with a theoretical explanation of why judges naturally favor the interests of the legal profession and follows with case law examples from diverse areas, including legal ethics, criminal procedure, constitutional law, torts, evidence, and the business of law. The book closes with a case study of the Enron fiasco, an argument that the lawyer-judge bias has contributed to the overweening complexity of American law, and suggests some possible solutions.

Earlier on Barton’s book, including a video, here.

{ 2 comments }

February 22 roundup

by Walter Olson on February 22, 2011

{ 3 comments }

Justice Samuel Alito’s Wriston Lecture before the Manhattan Institute last fall is now online.

January 21 roundup

by Walter Olson on January 21, 2011

December 28 roundup

by Walter Olson on December 28, 2010

{ 6 comments }

“Former justice Elizabeth Weaver, who retired this year after 16 years on the Michigan Supreme Court, evidently made secret recordings of internal court deliberations and has released transcripts of some of the meetings.” Most of Weaver’s former colleagues on the court have signed a letter condemning her resort to secret taping, saying they were unaware of it and would never have consented to it or to her revelation of court deliberations generally. Weaver came to the bench as a Republican but was long at odds with the other GOP members of the court. [WSJ Law Blog, Knake/Legal Ethics Blog]

{ 1 comment }

Sounds promising, from Tennessee law professor Benjamin Barton in January (via Glenn Reynolds):

Virtually all American judges are former lawyers, a shared background that results in the lawyer-judge bias. This book argues that these lawyer-judges instinctively favor the legal profession in their decisions and that this bias has far-reaching and deleterious effects on American law.

{ 11 comments }

Busy beavers at Beasley

by Walter Olson on September 25, 2010

Attorneys at the powerhouse Alabama plaintiff’s firm of Beasley Allen “gave more than $600,000 to a candidate for the state Supreme Court in 2008 without appearing on a list of her contributors, a recent report shows.” [Chamber-backed Legal NewsLine via PoL, Justice at Stake (PDF)]

One judge’s philosophy?

by Walter Olson on August 17, 2010

Washington Supreme Court Justice Richard Sanders, who won a moment of fame nationally for heckling then-Attorney General Michael Mukasey at a dinner, may conceive himself as a champion of the underdog, but if the Seattle Post-Intelligencer’s coverage is accurate, he doesn’t always manage to convey that stance in the most felicitous way: “Sanders said his job as a Supreme Court justice is to make sure ‘the smallest dog can lift its leg against the largest tree.’”

{ 3 comments }