Home About us Contact
|
Home About us Contact | ||
|
|
||
Trial Judge (trial + judge)
Selected Abstracts,Condemn a Little More, Understand a Little Less': The Political Context and Rights' Implications of the Domestic and European Rulings in the Venables-Thompson CaseJOURNAL OF LAW AND SOCIETY, Issue 3 2000Deena Haydon In 1993 Jon Venables and Robert Thompson were found guilty of the abduction and murder of two-year-old James Bulger. Aged ten at the time of the offence, the children were tried in an adult court before a judge and jury amidst a blaze of publicity. They were named by the trial judge and sentenced to detention at Her Majesty's Pleasure [HMp]. The Home Secretary set a minimum tariff of fifteen years imprisonment. In December 1999 the European Court of Human Rights held that, in the conduct of the trial and the fixing of the tariff, the United Kingdom government was responsible for violating the European Convention on Human Rights. This article maps how the case became a watershed in youth justice procedure and practice influencing Labour's proposals for reform and the 1998 Crime and Disorder Act. Examining the progression of appeals through the domestic and European courts, it explores the dichotomous philosophies separating the United Kingdom and European approaches to the age of criminal responsibility, the prosecution and punishment of children, and the influence of political policy on judicial decisions. Finally, the ,backlash' against ,threatening children', the affirmation of adult power and knowledge, and the implications of the European judgments in the context of a rights-based agenda are analysed. [source] Accountability and the Camera Perspective Bias in Videotaped ConfessionsANALYSES OF SOCIAL ISSUES & PUBLIC POLICY, Issue 1 2001G. Daniel Lassiter Prior research indicates that altering the perspective from which a videotaped confession is recorded influences assessments of the confession's voluntariness. The present study examined whether increasing decision makers' sense of accountability attenuates this biasing effect of camera perspective. Participants in a high-accountability (but not a low-accountability) condition were told that they would have to justify their judgments concerning the voluntary status of a video-taped confession to a trial judge. Although supplementary measures indicated that high-accountability participants processed information contained in the video-taped confession more carefully and thoroughly, the camera perspective bias persisted. This result adds to a growing body of work indicating that the criminal justice system needs to be seriously concerned with how it acquires and utilizes videotaped confession evidence. [source] "The Defendant Has Seemed to Live a Charmed Life": Hopt v. Utah: Territorial Justice, The Supreme Court of the United States, and Late Nineteenth-Century Death Penalty JurisprudenceJOURNAL OF SUPREME COURT HISTORY, Issue 1 2000Sidney L. Harring On March 7, 1887, the Supreme Court of the United States decided Fred Hopt's fourth appeal to that Court. The Utah Territory murderer's conviction had been reversed three times over seven years-his "charmed life"-but this time both his luck and his legal argument had run out: his fourth conviction was upheld. Justice Stephen J. Field dismissed Hopt's four major claims: that several members of the jury were improperly seated in spite of bias; that a doctor's evidence of cause of death was beyond the scope of his expertise; that the trial judge's "reasonable doubt" jury instruction was inadequate; and that the prosecutor's reference to the "many times the case had been before the courts" was prejudicial. Five months later, on August 11, Hopt was executed by a firing squad in the yard of the Utah Penitentiary. Hopt was only one of over two thousand convicted criminals, mostly murderers, who were legally executed in the United States in the two decades between 1880 and 1900. However, his defense team of court-appointed Salt Lake City lawyers had kept him alive for seven years. During that time he had four jury trials, four appeals to the Supreme Court of Utah Territory, and four appeals to the Supreme Court of the United States. He is the only death penalty litigant ever to be the subject of four full opinions of the Supreme Court of the United States. [source] Understanding the Judicial Role in Addressing Gender Bias: A View from the Eighth Circuit Federal Court SystemLAW & SOCIAL INQUIRY, Issue 2 2002Kimberly A. Lonsway The role of trial judges in the litigation process is frequently debated. Are judges to be dispassionate adjudicators, disengaged referees in a sport in which attorneys compete? Or are they charged with a more active role in promoting the substance, form, and process of justice? In the present paper, we explore the judicial role in addressing gender bias in federal litigation, using data gathered for the Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task Force. The federal judges of this circuit were surveyed about their experiences, observations, and opinions of gender-biased conduct. Results indicated that although judges viewed judicial intervention as an appropriate response to gender bias, they had little personal experience with intervention in such a situation. Fur thermore, when specific hypothetical scenarios were presented, they generally agreed that the described conduct was inappropriate but offered little consensus regarding the best course of action for an attorney or judge confronted with such behavior. The Eighth Circuit data thus provide the basis for expanded understanding of the conduct at issue, the options for action in response, and the persistent discrepancy in viewpoints on gender bias and the judicial role. [source] | ||||||||||