With the goal of creating a safer, fairer, and less costly pretrial justice system, the Laura and John Arnold Foundation (LJAF) have announced the development of a national pretrial risk assessment tool.

The result of a large-scale, two-year project, in the research brief, Developing a National Model for Pretrial Risk Assessment, LJAF laid out the need for the new tool, described how it was developed, and expressed their desire for it to be used in jurisdictions across the country.

Here are the research summaries and reports.

From The Brennan Center Fair Courts E-Alert:

Iowa District Court Judge Karen Romano is being negatively targeted by the conservative group The Family Leader for what it calls judicial activism, according to the Muscatine Journal. The Family Leader criticized Judge Romano after she ruled “to temporarily suspend a state rule that would bar use of a video-conferencing method of dispensing abortion pills. Romano’s ruling – a common legal procedure – suspends enforcement of the law or rule in question until it can be tried. Romano, in fact, noted that the ruling did not ‘in any way decide the merits of petitioners’ constitutional and other claims.’” In 2010, the Family Leader campaigned against three Iowa Supreme Court justices who participated in a decision establishing a right to marriage for same-sex couples under the Iowa Constitution; all three justices lost their retention elections. The Family Leader referenced this 2010 election in their denouncement of Judge Romano. Bob Vander Plaats, president and CEO of the group, warned, “Apparently, Judge Romano has not learned a lesson from that vote. The Family Leader encourages Iowans to remember Judge Karen Romano’s activism when she is up for retention in November 2016.

Source:  Dubuque Telegraph Herald Editorial via Muscatine Journal, Vander Plaats again attacks Iowa judiciary, November 27, 2013.

As readers of the blog know I am a big fan of Richard Zorza.  So if he says nice things….maybe….maybe….they are worth reposting:

Judge Kevin Burke to Present Important Webinar on Procedural Fairness

by richardzorza

 

As you know, much of our work on access, including particularly our judicial ethics work, is predicated on the research into public perceptions of procedural fairness.  Judge Burke has long been a leader in analyzing and presenting the implications of this work.

The upcoming webinar, featuring Judge Burke and hosted by the NCSC Center on Court Access to Justice for All (with which I am associated) will be a treat.  It is described as follows:

Judge Kevin Burke, a Minneapolis trial judge since 1984 and a national leader in court reform will be presenting. He coauthored the American Judges Association’s white paper on procedural fairness in 2007 and has been a regular speaker on the topic.  Studies on procedural fairness point to the fact that litigant satisfaction is more closely correlated to the perception of being treated fairly and understanding the process than the actual outcome of the case. This is a particularly important concept for the self-represented litigant.  Similarly, compliance with court orders is dependant in large part upon the litigant actually understanding the order.  Judge Burke will describe the basic components of procedural fairness and the importance of using these techniques when handling cases with self-represented litigants.

The webinar will be on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 2 PM Eastern.  Registration info is here.

Clever prose from an appellate court is always worth noting.

One such example is an opinion which begins:

In 2011 a Commissioner of Dixon, Illinois, the childhood home of President Reagan, lauded Rita Crundwell, the City’s Comptroller since 1983, because “she looks after every tax dollar as if it were her own.” How right he was. The next year Crundwell pleaded guilty to embezzling approximately $53 million from the City between 1990 and 2012.

For the full opinion (which, although interesting, is not quite as good as the opening lines), go here.

Yesterday, the nation’s police chiefs called for changes in the way they conduct investigations as a means to prevent wrongful convictions, including modifying eyewitness identification.

In a joint effort with the Justice Department and the Innocence Project, an advocacy group for prisoners seeking exoneration through DNA testing, the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), urged police departments nationwide to adopt new guidelines for conducting photo lineups, videotaping witness interviews, and corroborating information from jailhouse informants, among 30 recommendations.

See the full story, as reported by the Washington Post, here.

As readers of the blog know I am a big fan of Richard Zorza.  So if he says nice things….maybe….maybe….they are worth reposting:

Judge Kevin Burke to Present Important Webinar on Procedural Fairness

by richardzorza

 

As you know, much of our work on access, including particularly our judicial ethics work, is predicated on the research into public perceptions of procedural fairness.  Judge Burke has long been a leader in analyzing and presenting the implications of this work.

The upcoming webinar, featuring Judge Burke and hosted by the NCSC Center on Court Access to Justice for All (with which I am associated) will be a treat.  It is described as follows:

Judge Kevin Burke, a Minneapolis trial judge since 1984 and a national leader in court reform will be presenting. He coauthored the American Judges Association’s white paper on procedural fairness in 2007 and has been a regular speaker on the topic.  Studies on procedural fairness point to the fact that litigant satisfaction is more closely correlated to the perception of being treated fairly and understanding the process than the actual outcome of the case. This is a particularly important concept for the self-represented litigant.  Similarly, compliance with court orders is dependant in large part upon the litigant actually understanding the order.  Judge Burke will describe the basic components of procedural fairness and the importance of using these techniques when handling cases with self-represented litigants.

The webinar will be on Wednesday, December 11, 2013 at 2 PM Eastern.  Registration info is here.

Cara H. Drinan (Catholic University of America (CUA)) has posted “Misconstruing Graham & Miller” (Washington University Law Review, Vol. 91, 2014) on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

In the last three years the Supreme Court has decreed a sea change in its juvenile Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. In particular, in its Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama rulings, the Court struck down a majority of the states’ juvenile sentencing laws, outlawing life without parole for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses and mandating individualized sentencing for those children who commit even the most serious crimes. An examination of state laws and sentencing practices, however, suggests that the Graham and Miller rulings have fallen on deaf ears. After briefly describing what these two decisions required of the states, in this Essay, I outline the many ways in which state actors have failed to comply with the Court’s mandate. Finally, I map out a path for future compliance that relies heavily upon the strength and agility of the executive branch.

Sex Trafficking Court Holds Hope for the Oft-Blamed

Mary Leary
Catholic University of America (CUA)

October 7, 2013

 The National Law Journal, October 7, 2013

CUA Columbus School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2013-11

Doctrinal Conversation: Justice Kagan’s Supreme Court Opinions

Laura Ray

Widener University – School of Law

November 12, 2013

 Indiana Law Journal Supplement, v. 89, 2013

Widener Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 13-39

Abstract:

In her first two terms on the Supreme Court, Justice Elena Kagan has crafted a distinctive judicial voice that speaks to her readers in a remarkably conversational tone. She employs a variety of rhetorical devices: invocations to “remember” or “pretend”; informal and even colloquial diction; a diverse assortment of similes and metaphors; and parenthetical interjections that guide the reader’s response. These strategies engage the reader in much the same way that Kagan as law professor may well have worked to engage her students, and in the context of judicial opinions they serve several purposes. They make Kagan’s opinions accessible to lay readers as well as legal professionals, a goal she has specified. More generally, her conversational style works to persuade her readers that her arguments are grounded in both legal doctrine and the familiar texture of human experience.