Articles Posted in The Judiciary

Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Chief Justice of the Indiana Supreme Court, has been selected as the recipient of the Sixth Annual Dwight D. Opperman Award for Judicial Excellence. Chief Justice Shepard was chosen by a three-member panel: Hon. Judith S. Kaye, former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals; Justice Ronald Robie, California Court of Appeal–Third Appellate District; and Judge Frederic Rodgers, Gilpin Combined Courts, Colorado. The award will be presented in early 2010.

See this American Judicature Society News Release for more details.

Letter:

Remarkable Work By State Judges*

In “10 Suggestions for Court Reform,” New York City Corporation Counsel Michael A. Cardozo notes that our nation’s state courts are in crisis. Many of society’s most intractable problems end up in the state courts, particularly during economic downturns. In New York, this has been especially true. Throughout the state, filings continue to spiral, in every case category. Over the past five years, filings in New York City have risen in Family Court by 24 percent and in Criminal Court by 19 percent, as well as in Civil Court and in Supreme Civil and Supreme Criminal. One result of this, for example, is that a judge in the Civil Term of Supreme Court in New York City has a caseload that exceeds 600 cases, and a judge in the New York City Family Court can handle over 1,000 cases at any one time. Recent efforts to create additional judgeships, which will help alleviate these massive inventories, have yet to meet with success.

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.

Contact Information