Subjects -> LAW (Total: 1397 journals)
    - CIVIL LAW (30 journals)
    - CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (52 journals)
    - CORPORATE LAW (65 journals)
    - CRIMINAL LAW (28 journals)
    - CRIMINOLOGY AND LAW ENFORCEMENT (161 journals)
    - FAMILY AND MATRIMONIAL LAW (23 journals)
    - INTERNATIONAL LAW (161 journals)
    - JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)
    - LAW (843 journals)
    - LAW: GENERAL (11 journals)

JUDICIAL SYSTEMS (23 journals)

Showing 1 - 15 of 15 Journals sorted alphabetically
American Business Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 23)
Australian Journal of Maritime and Ocean Affairs     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Berkeley Journal of Middle Eastern & Islamic Law     Open Access  
Court Review : The Journal of the American Judges Association     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
De Jure: Jurnal Hukum dan Syar'iah     Open Access   (Followers: 1)
European Journal of Health Law     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 7)
Industrial Law Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 29)
International Comparative Jurisprudence     Open Access   (Followers: 2)
Judicature     Full-text available via subscription   (Followers: 3)
Justice System Journal     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 5)
Justicia Islamica     Open Access  
Medical Law Review     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 26)
Washington University Jurisprudence Review     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice     Open Access   (Followers: 3)
Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht     Hybrid Journal   (Followers: 20)
Similar Journals
Journal Cover
Court Review : The Journal of the American Judges Association
Number of Followers: 1  

  This is an Open Access Journal Open Access journal
ISSN (Print) 0011-0647
Published by Digital Commons Homepage  [8 journals]
  • Sniffer-dog Searches in the United States

    • Authors: Eve M. Brank et al.
      Abstract: We present here a complement to Judge Wayne Gorman’s article on the law of sniffer-dog searches in Canada found on page 52. Similar to Judge Gorman’s article, we examine U.S. Supreme Court cases about the use of police dogs in searches.The U.S. Supreme Court first addressed the issue of dog sniffs in U.S. v. Place 1 pursuant to the Fourth Amendment protection from unreasonable government searches and seizures and requirements for obtaining a search warrant.2 We start with a brief historical 3 reminder of Fourth Amendment case law to provide context for current sniffer-dog questions. Next, we provide an overview of U.S. Supreme Court cases that have addressed what role sniffer dogs should have in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence.
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:57:08 PST
       
  • Court Review 55:2 (20190- Whole Issue

    • Abstract: ARTICLES56 Sniffer-dog Searches in the United States Eve M. Brank, Jennifer L. Groscup, Emma Marshall & Lori Hoetger62 Toward a Judiciary Both Independent and Accountable Robert H. Tembeckjian68 Responsibility, Respect, Temperance, and Honesty: Selected State Judicial Discipline Cases in 2018 Cynthia GrayDEPARTMENTS50 Editor’s Note51 President’s Column52 Thoughts from Canada Crossword80 The Resource Page
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:57:03 PST
       
  • The Law of Sniffer-Dog Searches in Canada

    • Authors: Wayne K. Gorman
      Abstract: In Who’s a Good Boy' U.S. Supreme Court Considers Again Whether Dog Sniffs Are Searches (Justic, January 16, 2019), Professor Sherry F. Colb notes that the United States Supreme Court “is currently considering whether to grant review in Edstrom v. Minnesota.” She indicates that this “presents the issue whether police must obtain a search warrant before bringing a trained narcotics dog to sniff at a person’s door for illicit drugs.” Professor Colb’s article goes on to consider prior occasions in which the Supreme Court of the United States has considered the constitutionality of searches though dog sniffing.1Ultimately, the United States Supreme Court denied the application for certiorari in Edstrom v. Minnesota (2019 WL 888181). As a result, it will not be considering the dog-sniff issue raised in that case.Professor Colb’s article made me think about the law of dogsniffing- related searches in my country. As a result, in this column, I intend to look at how the use of sniffer-dogs searches has been addressed by the Supreme Court of Canada.
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:56:58 PST
       
  • Responsibility, Respect, Temperance, and Honesty: Selected State Judicial
           Discipline Cases in 2018

    • Authors: Cynthia Gray
      Abstract: In 2018, as a result of state disciplinary proceedings, seven judges were removed from office, 25 judges resigned or retired in lieu of discipline and publicly agreed to never serve again, one judge agreed to resign and was publicly admonished, 11 judges were suspended without pay, three judges received cease-and-desist orders, and 84 judges received public censures, reprimands, admonishments, or warnings.1 Reflecting that the code of judicial conduct requires a judge “to act at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary,”2 the conduct underlying those sanctions related both to performing judicial duties, such as abuse of authority and lack of diligence, and to off-bench activities, such as driving while intoxicated and inappropriate political activity.2SOCIAL MEDIAThe trend of judges getting into trouble on Facebook that began in 2009 continued through 2018, with several discipline cases illustrating the perils of participating on social-media platforms that judicial ethics advisory committees have warned judges about.For example, the Arizona Commission on Judicial Conduct publicly reprimanded a judge for mocking a litigant in a Facebook post that purported to be a verbatim account of an eviction proceeding over which the judge had presided and began: “In the category of, You can’t make this stuff up!”3 The post described a maintenance man’s testimony about finding heroin under the bathroom rug in the tenant’s apartment. The tenant testified that the heroin was not his, explaining that cocaine was his drug of choice and he keeps his drugs in a safe. When asked how the heroin got into his apartment, the tenant replied: “I don’t know. Maybe one of the hookers I had in my apartment left it.” The judge’s post ended: “Needless to say, the Court ruled in favor of the landlord.”
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:56:52 PST
       
  • Toward a Judiciary Both Independent and Accountable

    • Authors: Robert H. Tembeckjian
      Abstract: There may be no state interest more compelling than the independence, impartiality, and integrity of the judiciary. 1 There may also be no public office for which individual accountability is so critical, not only because judges often have the last word in our society’s disputes, but because public confidence in the courts is fundamental to the rule of law around which our society is organized. Trust in the administration of justice depends not only on the merits of the verdicts rendered in the courtroom but on the probity and the appearance of probity among those who decree them. A litigant may not feel happy about losing a case, but no one should walk out of a proceeding reasonably believing that the process was tainted by an arbiter who was biased, improperly influenced, or otherwise unfair.By the early twentieth century, some states had individually attempted to address the delicate balance between judicial independence and accountability, typically by drafting rudimentary standards of ethical conduct to which judges could aspire.2 The American Bar Association then took up the issue and in 1924 issued Canons of Judicial Ethics, which attempted to harmonize the judicial responsibility to decide cases free from outside influence with the judge’s obligation to behave on and off the bench in a manner that enhances respect for the independence, integrity, and impartiality of the judiciary.3Throughout the United States, while the 1924 ABA code offered commendable aspirational guidance to the bench, enforcement was either entirely lacking or left to the courts themselves. Not surprisingly, judges were not especially energetic about enforcing rules of conduct on one another.4 Nor was the alternative remedy of impeachment apt to be initiated by a legislature.5
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:56:47 PST
       
  • President’s Column Volume 55 Page 51

    • Authors: Robert J. Torres Jr.
      Abstract: Dear colleagues and Court Review readers!This is the last column I will write as your president, and it has been an honor and a privilege to serve. Besides planning our well-renowned educational programs, over the past year, we focused on strengthening our committees by keeping them active and meeting regularly—whether in person at our conferences or through the numerous phone calls that spanned nine time zones and the International Date Line. We have been committed to bolstering membership while collaborating and partnering with other organizations to provide excellent educational opportunities. We continue to encourage diversity throughout our organization, and offer wellness and judicial family support to our members.In April, we wrapped up our midyear meeting in Savannah, Georgia, where we partnered with the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP) to provide education sessions on Effective Judicial Practices and Court Interventions for Defendants with Substance Use Disorders and Therapeutic Jurisprudence Initiatives. The NADCP’s Chief Executive Officer Carson Fox, Chief Operating Officer Terrence Walton, and Board of Directors Chair Michael Barrasse were panelists for the sessions, along with California Judge Richard Vlavianos. The National Judicial College also aligned with our efforts by providing a pre-conference course on Advanced Bench Skills: Procedural Fairness. It was a successful midyear meeting, and the efforts of Mary Celeste in getting the commitment from NADCP and NJC cannot be overlooked.
      PubDate: Mon, 18 Nov 2019 09:56:37 PST
       
  • Court Review 55:1 (2019)- Whole Issue

    • Abstract: ARTICLES10 The Facts Behind the Media Coverage, the Sentence that Launched a Recall Jeffrey J. Hunt16 Send Them a Message': The Threat to a Fair and Impartial State-Court Judiciary Barbara J. Pariente & Melanie Kalmanson30 The Least Accountable Branch' James L. Gibson & Michael J. Nelson36 Judicial Recall and Retention in the #MeToo Era Jordan M. Singer
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:43 PST
       
  • The Least Accountable Branch'

    • Authors: James L. Gibson et al.
      Abstract: Under what conditions should judges be held accountable to their constituents for the decisions they make' In framing our question as we have we are immediately tipping our hand on two crucial issues: (1) we assume that judges have constituents, which is, of course, technically true of more than 90% of American judges, and (2) we imply that under at least some conditions, accountability is not only appropriate but required by most theories of liberal democracy. Our arguments run as follows:• In many areas of law, including sentencing, judges are given by statute an enormous amount of discretion.• When law authorizes discretion, law no longer indicates what specific decision should be made. Any decision that falls within the range of discretion authorized by law must be judged to be compatible with the rule-of-law.• Judges may base their discretionary decisions on many factors, including expertise, their own ideological predilections, their own self-interest, the interests of the workgroup of which they are a member, and the preferences and interests of their constituents, to name just a few salient factors.
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:37 PST
       
  • Jounalistic Sources and the Searching of Media Outlets in Canada

    • Authors: Wayne K. Gorman
      Abstract: The searching of media outlets by the police in Canada is, as elsewhere, a controversial topic. For instance, a recent decision of the Supreme Court of Canada (R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc., 2018 SCC 53), which compelled a reporter to produce material to the police concerning an alleged crime, was described by one Canadian media outlet as a decision that will have a “damaging effect on investigative reporting across the country and weaken Canadian democracy” (see Global News, https://globalnews.ca).In this column, I intend to review the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Vice Media and recent legislation enacted by Parliament, which now governs the authority of the police to search media outlets for evidence. As will be seen, the concern about democracy being weakened in Canada because of the Supreme Curt’s decision is somewhat overstated.
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:31 PST
       
  • The Facts Behind the Media Coverage, the Sentence that Launched a Recall

    • Authors: Jeffrey J. Hunt
      Abstract: In March of 2016, a jury convicted Brock Allen Turner of assault with intent to commit rape, sexual penetration of an intoxicated person, and sexual penetration of an unconscious person.1 The story of Turner’s prosecution attracted national attention even before he was sentenced. Turner, then a 19-year-old Stanford University athlete, sexually assaulted 22-year-old Jane Doe 1 while she was unconscious behind a dumpster near a fraternity house on campus.The media attention escalated to viral status when Turner received the sentencing decision from Judge Aaron Persky, who at the time had been a judge on the Santa Clara County Superior Court for over a decade. The media headlines almost wrote themselves: on the three felony counts, Turner faced up to fourteen years in state prison; but Judge Persky rejected the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendation of six years in prison and instead granted Turner probation and sentenced him to a total of six months in county jail.2 Under a California law that allows inmates to earn one day off their sentence for each day of good behavior,3 Mr. Turner served a total of only three months, and was released in early September 2016.
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:26 PST
       
  • Send Them a Message': The Threat to a Fair and Impartial State-Court
           Judiciary

    • Authors: Barbara J. Pariente et al.
      Abstract: What message do voters send by removing a judge from office based on disagreement with a lawful judicial decision' That question is at the heart of this issue of the American Judges Association’s Court Review, which focuses on the issue in light of the 2018 recall of California Judge Aaron Persky based on public outrage at the lawful, but extremely lenient, sentence he gave to a Stanford University student-athlete in a highly publicized sexual assault case. The message to other judges: Impose harsher sentences' Or perhaps a more specific message: Take sexual assault cases seriously' Viewed broadly, is this an example of the voters demanding accountability in sentencing, or of voters sending a more insidious message—Rule in a way that is not in step with the prevailing public opinion and risk your position as a judge' Despite the valid concerns caused by the Stanford case, it is this latter message that, in my view, presents the greatest threat to judicial independence.In 2010, those who opposed same-sex marriage in Iowa sent precisely this dangerous message. An aptly named TV ad, “Send Them a Message,” urged Iowa voters to “vote NO” on the retention of three respected Iowa Supreme Court justices, characterizing them as “activist judges” who “ignor[e] the will of voters,” “legislat[e] from the bench,” and “usurp the will of voters.”1 The ad was part of a larger, politically motivated campaign to oust the three justices who were on the ballot for merit retention. To be clear, the outrage was not based on the justices’ ethics, professionalism, jurisprudence, or judicial integrity. Rather, the effort to remove these justices focused on one particular, unanimous decision striking down, as unconstitutional, Iowa’s ban on same-sex marriage. The message: Do not ignore the will of the voters.
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:20 PST
       
  • The Fiction of Atticus Finch Meets the Reality of James Prince

    • Authors: David Prince
      Abstract: For nearly all of us, To Kill a Mockingird served as one of the major milestones on our paths to heeding the call to serve the rule of law. For me, Harper Lee’s iconic novel shaped my journey from a slightly different perspective. Legal professionals routinely praise the inspirational bravery and integrity of the central character, lawyer Atticus Finch. But two other pieces of the story were more formative for me.When prompted, most can remember that tension-filled scene in which unarmed Atticus Finch tried to face down a mob intent on lynching his client, Tom Robinson, an African- American accused of raping a white woman in racist America. Atticus doesn’t make much progress until his daughter, Scout, and two other children show up. Scout greets members of the mob by name, takes away their anonymity within the mob, and shames them with her innocence. The mob mentality is broken not by force, authority, or persuasion as in the classic Hollywood western but by individual humanity. Everybody lives to witness Atticus’s brilliant and spirited defense of Mr. Robinson in court.I find that far too many people forget the second piece of the story that so impacted me. Despite Atticus’s utterly convincing defense, Mr. Robinson was found guilty in a clear miscarriage of justice. Given the time, Tom Robinson was, in all likelihood, executed a short time later. And so I was always left to wonder, what was the point of it all' It seemed to me that the community just made a lynching look like a legitimate legal proceeding.
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:15 PST
       
  • Judicial Recall and Retention in the #MeToo Era

    • Authors: Jordan M. Singer
      Abstract: The voter recall of California judge Aaron Persky in June 2018 was a watershed cultural moment. For the first time in more than forty years, a sitting judge had been removed from the bench, by the local citizenry, in a special election. The recall—instigated in reaction to Judge Persky’s lenient sentence for a defendant convicted of three counts of sexual assault—was hailed as a major political victory for the #MeToo movement, and a sign of an emerging consensus that soft treatment of sex offenders within the justice system is no longer acceptable.Any questions about the sustainability of the moment were answered five months later, when Alaska voters removed another experienced trial judge, Michael Corey, on similar grounds. Like Judge Persky, Judge Corey drew national attention after granting a light sentence to a sexual offender. As was true with Judge Persky, the sentence stirred widespread dismay and local protest. And as they had with Judge Persky, political activists rapidly organized to remove Judge Corey from the bench, arguing that his actions constituted a dereliction of judicial duty. The campaigns in California and Alaska employed similar messaging and similar methods of outreach. And both campaigns saw the judge’s removal as merely the first step of a larger political movement to change existing law and social attitudes about sexual assault.
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:08 PST
       
  • President’s Column- 2019

    • Authors: Robert J. Torres Jr.
      Abstract: Dear colleagues and Court Review readers!The State of State Courts is an annual national survey conducted on behalf of the National Center for State Courts, and I thought it would be interesting to share the poll results and analysis as we focus on critical issues facing our respective judiciaries. In addition to NCSC ‘s regular tracking measures, this year’s research also examined three areas identified by NCSC’s advisory group as critical issues facing state courts across the country: cash bail reform, self-represented litigants, and online dispute resolution.Overall views toward state courts have held steady, and in a few cases improved, despite a year of “widespread political attacks on judges, campaign accusations of special interest influence on the court system, and increasingly partisan battles over judicial elections and nominations.” Since tracking began in 2012, voter confidence and trust in the state courts reached a new high, with governors and state legislatures ratings falling well below the courts.
      PubDate: Fri, 15 Nov 2019 11:52:03 PST
       
  • Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association

    • Abstract: ARTICLES 14 Looking Backward, Looking Forward: How the Evolution of Specialty Courts Can Inform the Courts of Tomorrow. 26 Benefits and Costs of Civil Justice Reform. 32 Treatment or Punishment: Sentencing Options in DWI Cases. DEPARTMENTS 2 Editor’s Note. 3 President’s Column. 4 Thoughts from Canada. 45 Crossword. 48 The Resource Page. EDITORIAL FEATURES 10 Filling Some Big Shoes: A Tribute to Retiring Court Review Editor Judge Steve Leben. 42 Remarks for Acceptance of the William H. Rehnquist Award Hon. Kim Berekley Clark.
      PubDate: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:31:47 PDT
       
  • REMARKS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF THE WILLIAM H. REHNQUIST AWARD HON. KIM
           BERKELEY CLARK

    • Authors: Kim Berkeley Clark
      Abstract: 42 Remarks for Acceptance of the William H. Rehnquist Award Hon. Kim Berekley Clark.
      PubDate: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:31:36 PDT
       
  • Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association

    • PubDate: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:31:24 PDT
       
  • BIG SHOES TO FILL

    • Authors: Victor Fleming
      Abstract: 45 Crossword.
      PubDate: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:31:13 PDT
       
  • Treatment or Punishment: Sentencing Options in DWI Cases

    • Authors: Victor Eugene Flango
      Abstract: 32 Treatment or Punishment: Sentencing Options in DWI Cases.
      PubDate: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:31:02 PDT
       
  • The Avoidance of Stereotypical Thinking

    • Authors: Wayne K. Gorman
      Abstract: 4 Thoughts from Canada.
      PubDate: Thu, 23 May 2019 11:30:51 PDT
       
 
JournalTOCs
School of Mathematical and Computer Sciences
Heriot-Watt University
Edinburgh, EH14 4AS, UK
Email: journaltocs@hw.ac.uk
Tel: +00 44 (0)131 4513762
 


Your IP address: 34.239.147.7
 
Home (Search)
API
About JournalTOCs
News (blog, publications)
JournalTOCs on Twitter   JournalTOCs on Facebook

JournalTOCs © 2009-