Prejudicial Publicity and Change of Venue in Civil Trials

1994 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 62-73
Author(s):  
F. Dennis Hale
Keyword(s):  
Appellate Courts ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Civil Trials

It's possible to get change of venue because of excessive publicity in civil cases, but requests have been granted in relatively few cases, and appellate courts seldom overrule trial courts on such requests.

Does Judicial Selection Affect Judicial Performance? Evidence from a Natural Experiment

The Forum ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-50
Author(s):  
Mona Vakilifathi ◽  
Thad Kousser
Keyword(s):  
Objective Measure ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Reversal Rate ◽  
Appellate Courts ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
Original Dataset ◽  
State Appellate Courts ◽  
Judicial Performance

AbstractDo judges selected by merit review commissions perform better than elected judges or those directly appointed by elected officials? This is a central question in both the academic study of state judicial institutions and the policy discourse about how to reform them. To address it, we take advantage of the variation in the means of the selection for trial court judges within Arizona, a state comprised of appointed, elected, and merit-selected trial court judges. This unique context allows us to use an objective measure of judicial performance – the reversal rate of trial court cases appealed to Arizona’s state appellate courts – to evaluate judges by their means of selection. We gather an original dataset on 2919 cases heard by 176 judges, estimating multivariate models that control for characteristics of cases and of judges. Overall, we find that elected judges have a lower reversal rate than merit-selected judges. Our findings question the conventional wisdom in the state courts literature in favor of merit selection and against judicial elections, and encourage further work on the effects of judges’ means of selection beyond state supreme courts to include state appellate and trial courts.

scholarly journals Cases, Conflict, and Accommodation: Patterns of Legal Interaction in an American Community

1983 ◽  
Vol 8 (4) ◽  
pp. 803-874 ◽  
Author(s):  
David M. Engel
Keyword(s):  
Conflict Resolution ◽  
Empirical Study ◽  
Social Relationships ◽  
Local Level ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
Indigenous Law ◽  
Civil Cases ◽  
Complex Relationships ◽  
Civil Trial

This article provides an overview of an empirical study of a civil trial court and the environment of indigenous law and conflict resolution in which the court operates. The article combines an analysis of civil cases and litigants with an investigation of alternative nonjudicial approaches used by residents of the community. The first section of the article examines the emergence of legal conflicts from the fabric of social relationships in the community and compares cases and parties in the court with those that gravitate toward nonjudicial settings. The second section compares processes and outcomes available in the court with those that may be obtained nonjudicially. The article concludes that different categories of cases emerge from different kinds of social relationships and for this reason are associated with fundamentally dissimilar patterns of values, norms, procedures, and outcomes. It also emphasizes the benefits to be obtained from investigating the complex relationships and interchanges that link local level trial courts to their communities.

Gatekeeping and Filtering in Trial Courts

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina L. Boyd
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Interdisciplinary Research ◽  
The United States ◽  
Court Cases ◽  
Appellate Courts ◽  
Trial Court ◽  
Plea Bargain ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
Civil Trial ◽  
Selection Of

Trial courts and their actors play critical gatekeeping and filtering roles within the judicial hierarchy. As this chapter discusses, the decisions made by litigants and judges in the millions of criminal and civil trial court cases in the United States each year affect things like what cases get filed, how cases develop, what cases settle or plea bargain and when, whether losing litigants will appeal, and, if they do, how the appellate courts will respond. This chapter proceeds by first examining the selection of disputes and charges that takes place by parties, prosecutors, and other lawyers prior to a case being filed in a trial court. Next, the chapter details the decision-making of trial court parties, lawyers, and judges. As the chapter concludes, it discusses the unique set of challenges present for interdisciplinary research on trial courts.

Probation or Prison

1975 ◽  
Vol 21 (4) ◽  
pp. 331-336 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sol Rubin
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Appellate Courts ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
National Advisory Commission ◽  
Advisory Commission

Although legal principles capable of remedying disparity and unjust prison commitments have been recognized and have been applied to sentencing, most trial and appellate courts resist adopting them, adhering to the old and failing concept of total autonomy of trial courts in sentenc ing. Some cases that apply these principles and others that do not are cited and analyzed. Adoption of the principle of the least drastic alternative, the foremost of the needed reforms, calls for supporting practices. It is recom mended by the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, whose proposed criteria are set forth.

Affirmed: A Study of Criminal Appeals and Decision-Making Norms in a California Court of Appeal

1982 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 543-648 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas Y. Davies
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Error Correction ◽  
Reversal Rate ◽  
Appellate Courts ◽  
Substantial Evidence ◽  
Trial Courts ◽  
Criminal Convictions ◽  
Institutional Norms ◽  
Court Of Appeal

The work of state intermediate appellate courts is often described as “correcting legal errors” and “supervising” trial courts. But what do these labels mean in practice? This article explores the intermediate appellate process through a study of criminal appeals in a California Court of Appeal. Part I describes the characteristics and dispositions of criminal appeals. Contrary to popular impression, a conviction was reversed in only about 5 percent of these appeals. To explain the low reversal rate, part II draws upon interviews with justices of the Court of Appeal to examine the institutional norms and perspectives guiding the court's decisions. The basic decision norms described by the justices are norms of affirmance: for example, the harmless error rule and the substantial evidence rule incline the court to affirm despite certain legal errors or factual questions. Moreover, the particularistic approach the court typically takes in its decision making apparently sensitizes it to the substantive characteristics prevailing in criminal appeals: the crimes are serious and there is little doubt about factual guilt. The low reversal rate and the analysis of the court's norms suggest that intermediate appellate review of criminal convictions is narrower and more constrained than the “error correction” and “supervision” labels imply. Part III explores the implications of the case study for appellate policy.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document