Judicial opinion

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

Blind or Biased? Justitia's Susceptibility to Anchoring Effects in the Courtroom Based on Given Numerical Representations

Abstract: This article presents an integrative review of recent research on anchoring effects in the courtroom as one example for the strong impact of representation norms on sentencing decisions. Anchoring effects – the assimilation of numerical judgments to a given standard – have been demonstrated in many judgmental domains. Even sentencing decisions are subject to anchoring effects. In court proceedings this gives disproportionate weight to the prosecutor, whose sentencing demand serves as an anchor. The prosecution’s sentencing demand even affects defense attorneys, who assimilate their own sentencing recommendation to it. This influence seems to remain outside of defense attorneys’ awareness. Expertise does not attenuate this bias. Accordingly, defendants might be better off if defense attorneys could make their final case prior to the prosecutor’s case. Sentencing demands that are presented in the courtroom may be seen as numerical representations of different perceptions of a given case. The prosecution expresses its view of the case via a concrete sentencing demand at the end of the trial process. Similarly, the defense summarizes its perspective by presenting a different sentencing recommendation. In the end, the judge decides on a specific sentence, which represents his final opinion about all the facts presented during the court proceedings. But to what extent do these numerical representations influence each other? In what way are the prosecutor’s sentencing demand, the defense attorney’s sentencing recommendation, and the judge’s decision intertwined? In this article, the focus is especially on the question of whether these numerical representations influence judicial decision making in an irrational or unexpected way. Anchoring effects in the courtroom may serve as an example of such numerical sentencing biases.

Realigning the Standard of Review of Director Due Care with Delaware Public Policy: A Critique of Van Gorkom and its Progeny as a Standard of Review Problem

Abstract: In this commentary, the authors examine the role of Smith v. Van Gorkom as part of a continuum of Delaware judicial decisions that gives insufficient weight to the substantive policy judgments underlying the gross negligence standard of review that governs whether corporate directors should be found liable for breaching their duty of care. The gross negligence standard is consistent with Delaware's long-standing policy of deferring to business decisions made by well-motivated fiduciaries and limits the ability of judges to intervene in business decisions made by properly motivated directors. The authors argue that Van Gorkom and two of its important progeny run counter to Delaware public policies restricting the judicial enforcement of the duty of care to cases where directors have acted in a manner that represents an extreme departure from expected normative behavior, and, if damages are sought, have not been exculpated by the firm's certificate of incorporation. They conclude by proposing that to better align judicial decision-making with those public policies, courts should apply a true gross negligence liability standard, which would require plaintiffs to prove that a director caused quantifiable damage. The authors further propose that courts respect decisions by stockholders that insulate directors from liability for violating that standard.

Meaningful and Effective? Considering Victims’ Interests Through Participation at the International Criminal Court

Abstract: This article explores the role of victims in the criminal proceedings of the International Criminal Court and the extent to which their interests have impacted upon the ICC judges’ decision making in light of human rights law and victimological theorisation. The article begins by first outlining how victims’ interests can be considered in international criminal proceedings, before contrasting this role with the purpose of international criminal justice. The second part of the article examines victim participation within the ICC and how this has affected judicial decision making to assess its effectiveness. The contest between the rights of victims and the role of Prosecutor in determining the selection of charges and perpetrators is also examined in an effort to add to the current debate on victim participation at the ICC. The author finds that at the ICC, despite innovative victim provisions, victims’ interests have little impact on outcomes of the Court. The author argues that in order to ensure the Court is more responsive to victims understanding of justice it should give greater weight to their interests, which in turn is likely to improve their satisfaction with the ICC, as well as public confidence and legitimacy of the work of the Court.

The Lost World of Administrative Law

Abstract: The reality of the modern administrative state diverges considerably from the series of assumptions underlying the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and classic judicial decisions that followed the APA reviewing agency actions. Those assumptions call for statutory directives to be implemented by one agency led by Senate-confirmed presidential appointees with decision-making authority. The implementation (in the form of a discrete action) is presumed to be through statutorily mandated procedures and criteria, with judicial review to determine whether the reasons given by the agency at the time of its action match the delegated directions. This is the lost world of administrative law, though it is what students largely still learn. Today, there are often statutory and executive directives to be implemented by multiple agencies often missing confirmed leaders, where ultimate decision-making authority may rest outside of those agencies. The process of implementation is also through mandates in both statutes and executive orders, where the final result faces limited, if any, oversight by the courts. The mismatch has consequences for the legitimacy and efficacy of the federal bureaucracy: some positive, many negative. Because we do not think a return to the lost world is possible or perhaps even desirable, we propose some possible reforms in all three branches of the federal government to strengthen the match between current realities and administrative law and to further administrative law’s objectives of transparency, rule of law, and reasoned implementation of statutory mandates. We also hope that the proposed reforms can help foster the public interest goals of modern regulation, such as environmental quality or financial stability. We realize that many scholars and probably at least some judges are aware that formal administrative procedures, official records, and judicial review are only part of the dynamics of administrative governance. But administrative law, as developed by the courts and in governing statutes, has not meaningfully confronted the contemporary realities of the administrative state. It thus risks becoming irrelevant to the quality of governance.

American court systems : readings in judicial process and behavior

Abstract: Woodrow Wilson Fellowship 1961-1962 Harvard Fellowship 1962-1963 Woodrow Wilson Dissertation Fellowship 1964-1965 National Science Foundation grant to attend conference,1966 Social Science Research Council Grant 1967 Faculty Growth Grant, University of Massachusetts 1968 Faculty Research Grants, 1966, 1968, 1977 Healey Endowment Grant, 1985-1986 Faculty Fellowship awarded 1988 Moody Grant, LBJ Foundation, 1989 Grant, Harry S. Truman Library Institute, 1989 Grant, Ford Library, 1989 National Science Foundation Grant, 1998-2001