Judicial opinion

About: Judicial opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 5300 publications have been published within this topic receiving 64803 citations.

‘Condemn a Little More, Understand a Little Less’: The Political Context and Rights’ Implications of the Domestic and European Rulings in the Venables-Thompson Case

Abstract: 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

Attorney Expertise, Litigant Success, and Judicial Decision Making in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Abstract: In the U.S. legal system, litigants frequently retain counsel to represent their interest in civil cases, particularly when the stakes are high. Scholarly work and anecdotal evidence suggest that variation in the quality of advocacy has the potential to affect litigant success. We examine the relationship between attorney characteristics, case outcomes, and judicial voting in products liability decisions of the U.S. Courts of Appeals. Our analysis found some differences in the levels of experience and specialization of counsel, representing defendants and plaintiffs and that counsel expertise was, at times, related to litigant success. In a multivariate model of decision making, judge were less likely to support the position of plaintiffs when they were represented by counsel appearing for the first time before the circuit. When defendants were represented by attorneys who did not specialize in relevant areas of the law, judges were more likely to decide in favor of the plaintiff. These finding suggest that those attorneys who do not meet a minimum threshold of expertise will be less likely to find judicial support for their client than other attorneys. Such attorneys may be less successful as a result of their lack of familiarity with the law and appellate process or because they make poor choices regarding the likelihood of success on appeal.

Paraprofessional Services for Students with Disabilities: A Legal Analysis of Issues.

Abstract: Concomitant with the increase in the number of paraprofessionals assisting students with disabilities is the emergence of legal issues pertaining to the need, selection, responsibilities, preparation, and supervision of those paraprofessionals. The purpose of this article is to provide a legal analysis of administrative and judicial decisions concerning these issues and to propose guidelines for ensuring appropriate paraprofessional involvement in the educational programs for students with disabilities.

The Consistency of Judicial Choice

Abstract: Despite the fact that scholars of judicial politics have developed reasonably well-specified models of the voting behavior of U.S. Supreme Court justices, little attention has been paid to influences on the consistency of the choices justices make. Aside from the methodological problems associated with failure to account for heteroskedasticity with regard to the justices’ voting behavior, I argue that variance in judicial choice is also of theoretical import. Simply put, by uncovering influences on the stability of judicial choice, a more complete understanding of judicial decision making is provided. I explore this possibility by developing a theoretical framework that identifies influences on the consistency of judicial choice, which are then subjected to empirical testing. I show that the stability of judicial decision making is affected by attitudinal and strategic factors, as well as the Court's informational environment. The result is a more fully integrated model of Supreme Court decision making.

In Whose Name?: A Public Law Theory of International Adjudication

Abstract: Roughly 90% of all international judicial decisions have been issued after 1990 The increasing activity of international courts over the past two decades is one of the most significant developments within the international legal order It has repercussions on all levels of governance and unsettles received understandings of the nature and legitimacy of international courts An important and once even dominant understanding used to hold that international courts are but instruments of dispute settlement whose activities are justified by the consent of the states that created them and in whose name they decide This understanding eclipses other important judicial functions, underrates problems of legitimacy, and stands in the way of a full assessment of international adjudication It is modelled around the eminent International Court of Justice and is out of step with recent developments But what should be put in the place of this received understanding? The book proposes a public law theory of international adjudication, which sees international courts as multifunctional actors who exercise public authority and need democratic legitimacy The book’s theory’s three main building blocks are: multifunctionality, international public authority, and democracy The book thus wish to cut to the core of debates about the legitimacy of international adjudication with the driving question: In whose name do international courts decide?