Firearm Removal, Judicial Decision-Making, and Domestic Violence Protection Orders

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-32
Author(s):  
Mikaela Wallin ◽  
Alesha Durfee
2018 ◽  
Vol 65 (12) ◽  
pp. 1623-1647 ◽  
Author(s):  
Besiki Luka Kutateladze ◽  
Anna Leimberg

This study examines the influence of the type of defense counsel on prosecutorial and judicial decisions in domestic violence cases. We found that the type of defense counsel mattered more in sentencing compared with previous decision points. Cases handled by private attorneys were less likely to experience charge reductions at screening and be dismissed. However, decision patterns are reversed postarraignment, where charges start to decrease at a higher rate for cases represented by private counsel. Defendants represented by private lawyers were less likely to plead guilty, but they were also markedly less likely to face incarceration.


2005 ◽  
Vol 32 (6) ◽  
pp. 612-642 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kris Henning ◽  
Lynette Feder

Whereas significant research has been conducted to identify the legal and extralegal factors that influence police decisions concerning the arrest of domestic violence (DV) offenders, significantly fewer studies have examined prosecutorial and judicial decision making with regard to this offense. Among the few studies available in the extant literature, none have looked at the full range of decisions made during the adjudication process (i.e., pretrial release, prosecution, disposition, and sentencing). Similarly, few of the available studies have included female defendants, despite recent increases in the number of women charged for this offense. Using a sample of 4,178 defendants arrested for a misdemeanor or felony domestic violence offense, this research identified the suspect and offense characteristics that had the greatest effect on court decisions. Explanations for the resulting findings and recommendations for further research are discussed.


Author(s):  
Jeffrey J. Rachlinski ◽  
Chris Guthrie ◽  
Andrew J. Wistrich

Legal Studies ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Claire Hamilton

Abstract The changes to the Irish exclusionary rule introduced by the judgment in People (DPP) v JC mark an important watershed in the Irish law of evidence and Irish legal culture more generally. The case relaxed the exclusionary rule established in People (DPP) v Kenny, one of the strictest in the common law world, by creating an exception based on ‘inadvertence’. This paper examines the decision through the lens of legal culture, drawing in particular on Lawrence Friedman's distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ legal culture to help understand the factors contributing to the decision. The paper argues that Friedman's concept and, in particular, the dialectic between internal and external legal culture, holds much utility at a micro as well as macro level, in interrogating the cultural logics at work in judicial decision-making.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document