Articles Posted in The Judiciary

David Badertscher

One hundred years ago last Tuesday (November 3, 1909) the criminal court building in Manhattan (bounded by Centre, Lafayette, Franklin, and White Streets) was declared unsafe for human occupancy and everyone in the building at the time was ordered to leave immediately.

According to a New York Times article Written the following day, “when the last man was out a squad of thirty policemen under Inspector Daley and Captain Galvin took charge of the building, roping it off on all sides and remaining on guard outside the building to forbid anyone to enter or even pass through any of the flanking streets”.

Des Moines, IA – September 1, 2009 – According to an editorial in the latest issue of Judicature, the journal of the American Judicature Society, the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Caperton v. Massey Coal Company is a wake-up call for states to take disqualification seriously.

The editorial explains that “If state judicial systems have procedures in place to ensure that judges understand and follow more exacting disqualification rules, legitimate due process problems need never arise.” Caperton held that West Virginia Supreme Court Justice Brent Benjamin’s failure to recuse himself in a case involving a litigant who supported his election campaign was a violation of due process.

The editorial recommends judicial education programs that identify factors judges should consider when deciding whether campaign support they have received gives rise to a disqualifying appearance of partiality; having contested disqualification motions assigned to a different judge for final resolution; and, in the highest courts of each state, establishing a procedure to review disqualification decisions of individual justices by the remainder of the court or a special panel of judges. The editorial concludes that such procedures will foster public confidence in the expeditious administration of justice.

In their September 8 article in Bloomberg News, Cary O’Reilly and Linda Sandler write that “[A]s the White House and Congress debate how to regulate financial crisis, judges have assumed the point position of punishing Wall Street for causing the worst recession since the 1930s.” O’Reilly and Sandler point out that while the executive and legislative branches of government continue to discuss the possibilities of implementing various reforms as a response to the financial crisis that began approximately a year ago, “judges are [actually] taking the first steps toward the same goal, punishing executives and issuing rulings with national impact.” In their article O’Reilly and Sandler go on to enumerate specific examples of how some judges have proceeded along this path.

In response to criticism it received for submitting and all-male list with only one black of seven candidates to New York Governor David A. Paterson last December to fill a New York Court of Appeals opening created by the retirement of then Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye, the New York Commission on Judicial Nominations has released for public comment a number of proposed rule changes, Proposed Revisions to the Rules of the Commission on Judicial Nominations: Title 22 N.Y.C.R.R. Section 7100. The proposed revisions announced in a Press Release by the Commission on July 20; a 45 day comment period on the rules is expected to begin next week.:

Press Release Announce Proposed Rule Revisions

Download fileles of the New York Commission on Judical Nominations

Corey Rayburn Yung who teaches criminal law and procedure at the John Marshall Law School has posted a draft paper (Defining and Measuring Judicial Activism: An Empirical Study of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals) on SSRN. Professor Yung’s scholarship is primarily focused on sex crimes and judicial decision-making. Here is an Abstract of the paper:

July 15, 2009

Abstract: Defining and Measuring Judicial Activism: An Empirical Study of Judges on the United States Court of Appeals

Ten top stories.

July 10, 2009.

Editor’s Note: Check back at ABAJournal.com starting Monday for live coverage of the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings. The Journal’s U.S. Supreme Court expert Richard Brust will post highlights from the Senate committee Q&A.

Uncertainty in Law Circles Over New Court Ruling for Judges

By JOHN SCHWARTZ Published: June 10, 2009 by the New York Times

“Lawyers across the country said that a Supreme Court ruling on conflicts of interest among elected judges could prompt a deluge of requests for judges to recuse themselves from cases.,,,”

The Association of the Bar of the City of New York (New York City Bar) has just published its Report on the Merger of the Bronx Supreme and Criminal Courts. Commenting on the Report in his June 11, 2009 New York Law Journal article, “City Bar Report Cites ‘Serious Problems’ With Bronx Merger”, Daniel Wise writes: “The merger of Criminal and Supreme courts in the Bronx has created ‘serious problems’ if additional judicial resources are not made available, a report by the New York City Bar Concluded.” In the Report it is recommended that “strong and immediate attempts” need to be taken to handle a growing backlog of felony cases.

The New York City Bar report was prepared by the Committee on Criminal Courts and the Committee on Criminal Justice Operations, both committees of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and released on June 10, 2009. Below is an excerpt from the Opening Statement and a link to the complete report:

Opening Statement Excerpt:

Contact Information