Courts are sometimes required to make decisions that no matter what the outcome are just plain sad. That is what has happened in Connecticut. Connecticut’s highest court last week ordered a 17-year-old girl suffering from Hodgkin’s lymphoma to undergo cancer chemotherapy against her will and the wishes of her mother.

Michelle Edgely (University of New England (Australia) – School of Law) has posted Why Do Mental Health Courts Work? A Confluence of Treatment, Support & Adroit Judicial Supervision (37 International Journal of Law & Psychiatry 572-580) on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

The article contributes to the understanding of ‘what works’ in mental health courts (MHCs). There are now almost 400 MHCs in the US and more worldwide. A substantial body of evidence demonstrates that MHCs can succeed in reducing recidivism among offenders who suffer mentally disorders. This article argues that MHCs succeed when they have achieved the right confluence of essential elements, including providing evidence-based treatment and psychosocial supports and using adroit judge-craft.

After a brief review of some of the studies demonstrating MHC success, this article discusses the research into the necessary foundations of rehabilitation programs. It is argued that, although treatment and psychosocial services should be supplied within an evidence- based framework, neither of two leading conceptual models – Risk-Needs-Responsivity and the Good Lives Model – are empirically proven with offenders who suffer from mental disorders. Despite the absence of proof, the Good Lives Model is argued to be appropriate for MHCs because it is normatively consonant with therapeutic jurisprudence. The MHC judge is another essential element. The judicial role is assayed to elucidate how it functions to promote the rehabilitation of offenders with mental disorders. It is argued that the role of the MHC judge during supervisory status hearings is to establish a therapeutic alliance and practice motivational psychology with each MHC participant.

The ABA Tech Journal Monthly reports:

The Atlanta-based 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is warning users of its electronic filing system about a pop-up “survey” that is actually a virus. According to the court, a lawyer reported that while he was logged into the electronic filing system, a popup message invited him to take a survey from the bankruptcy court, the South Florida Lawyers blog reports. The lawyer clicked “OK” and his computer was infected with the virus.

“Please know that we do NOT currently have a survey being sent through CM/ECF or any other source,” the 11th Circuit announcement says. “If you receive an email or pop-up requesting your participation in a survey from our court, do not open it. Please delete it.”

Charles Hall, a spokesperson for the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts, tells the ABA Journal that the courts have received only one complaint about the virus, which is not generated by the federal courts’ information technology system.

“Attempts to hack computer systems are widespread across the Internet, and the judiciary devotes substantial resources to protecting the integrity of its IT systems,” Hall said. “In this case, the virus scheme is not connected with the judiciary’s IT systems.”

The WSJ Law Blog reports:

“I want to bring blind justice to the Michigan Supreme Court,” said Detroit-area attorney Richard Bernstein as a Michigan Supreme Court candidate. Legally blind since birth, Mr. Bernstein makes history as the first blind person to serve on the state’s highest court.

According to an Associated Press profile:

Bernstein is widely known in southeastern Michigan because his family’s personal-injury law firm regularly advertises on TV. He spent more than $1.8 million of his own money to campaign for the state Supreme Court. His slogan? “Blind Justice.”

As one of only two Democrats on the seven-member court, Bernstein is unlikely to crack the court’s conservative sway. But he’s still expected to make a difference.

“His own experience and background is different than anyone else’s at the conference table,” said Justice Bridget McCormack, who was a law professor before being elected in 2012. “Richard knows a whole lot about disability law the rest of us don’t. We don’t get a lot of those cases. Who knows how it will be useful?”

In November, he was elected to an eight-year term. As the AP notes, he’s not the first blind judge to sit on the highest court of a state.

Missouri Supreme Court Justice Richard B. Teitelman, who is legally blind, was appointed to the court in 2002. On the federal level, there’s David Tatel, a blind judge serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

A woman was being questioned in a court trial involving slander.

“Please repeat the slanderous statements you heard, exactly as you heard them,” instructed the lawyer.

The witness hesitated. “But they are unfit for any respectable person to hear,” she protested.

“Then,” said the attorney, “just whisper them to the judge.”

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr.’s “2014 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary” can be found at this link.

Chief Justices giving an annual State of The Judiciary speech is hardly a novel idea. Many states have the tradition, and some of those speeches are even memorable. But there will be no State of the Judiciary in Washington State in 2015.

The Olympian reports:

Chief Justice Barbara Madsen of the Washington state Supreme Court won’t be giving her State of the Judiciary speech next month to the Legislature. Lawmakers have decided to not set aside time for the address, a move that could easily be seen as a slap at the court for its finding the Legislature in contempt this year in a landmark school funding case.

That’s not the reason, legislators say. They cite poor attendance at past addresses from the court and the number of other joint sessions that the legislative calendar has to accommodate as reasons for not extending an invitation this time.

Madsen expressed disappointment but said she will still give her report in writing.

“The State of the Judiciary address has been a tradition in Washington state for several decades now. It has served as a positive tool to inform the Legislature and the public about the state of Washington’s justice system,” Madsen said in a written statement to The Olympian and The News Tribune. “I hope that, in the future, the Supreme Court will again be invited to make this important presentation.”

The two branches of government have been at odds since the court ruled in 2012 that the Legislature was failing to meet the state’s paramount constitutional duty: to fully fund basic education. One major sticking point in school funding is the state’s growing reliance on local levies, which are supported unequally by different districts’ voters.

The full story can be found here.

The headline reads:  On New Year’s Eve don’t forget the chief justice’s report

Barb Jones reports that, “There’s so much excitement on New Year’s Eve—the champagne corks hitting the ceiling and the champagne flowing all over the carpet; the agonizing wait to see if the ball drops at Times Square; and the year-end report from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The National Law Journal points out that many of the chief’s perennial wish-list items have been fulfilled—increased funding, increased judicial salaries, and the confirmation of a bunch of judges in December.

Roberts is a wordsmith and may hit one out of the park. Or he could emulate his 2009 report which, not including court workload data, was one paragraph long.

Will the chief justice address the change at the Senate Judiciary Committee? The Journal reports in the same article that among federal judges there is a “sense of foreboding about what will happen when Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa takes over the chairmanship of the Senate Judiciary Committee from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont, in the new Congress.”

We’ll bring you the report as soon as possible on December 31.”

PIX 11 News recently reported:

The scales of justice are meant to be balanced. But when it comes to the bail system in New York State, Chief Judge Jonathan Lippman that’s far from the case.

“I believe it can be summed up in two words: unsafe, unfair,” said Lippman.

Right now, judges are not allowed to consider public safety when granting or denying bail. So thousands of misdemeanor defendants are detained while their cases are pending, simply because they cannot afford to post bail.

Meanwhile violent offenders with money can easily find their way back on the street.

“They could have a huge bail set, and the bail bondsman will want to help them, they’ll be out on the street when there really are questions whether they should be,” said Lippman. “And the poor person, who doesn’t have a dime in their pocket but isn’t a violent criminal, is not going to hurt anybody, they stay in prison at the public expense.”

An expense that adds up to hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for each individual, even if they don’t pose a threat to society.

It’s a system Christopher Gaskin says he knows all too well.

In the past, Gaskin has waited at Riker’s Island for 8-months while waiting for his trial.

“I couldn’t finish school,” said Gaskin. “At that time I created a big wall between me and my family. And it was just a part of my life that I had to live with.”

Lippman says in many cases, low-income defendants agree to a plea deal simply to get out because they feel there are no other options.

“It really pushes people toward pleading guilty when they may be innocent.”

But one program at Brooklyn Criminal Court is trying to change the status quo by offering low-level defendants the opportunity to skip bail through a supervised release program.

“The goal of the program is to provide rigorous supervision to defendants coming through the court system on misdemeanor charges where low-level bail is set,” said Jessica Kay with Brooklyn Justice Initiatives.

The supervised release program, which has been around for about a year, is the first of its kind in the state. So far they’ve helped more than 200 defendants who would have otherwise ended up at Rikers Island. Defendants like Christopher Gaskin.

“There’s situations like that where it would really help a guy,” said Gaskin. “Because this way he can go out and work, pay his bills, an all that other stuff. But in there, he just loses everything. And a lot of people they lose their families while they’re in too. That’s the worst part.”

Brooklyn Justice Initiatives has rigorous vetting process to identify the defendants they help. BJI works with defense attorneys, looks at criminal history, ties to the community, and even interviews close contacts.

If the court agrees to the release, the defendants receive rigorous supervision to ensure they return to court – the intended purpose of bail for a significantly lower cost to taxpayers.

“And it has a better outcome for the individual, for the court system, and for public safety,” said Kay.

While Lippman says supervised release programs are a good start, he says New York’s bail system still needs an overhaul. So he’s calling on Albany.

The judge presented a bill he hopes will be brought to the state floor next month. Critics say the stance is soft on crime. Lippman says it’s not soft or strong, but smart.

“Everybody gets their day in court. And today, with our bail system and pre-trial justice the way it exists today, that’s really questionable. And that’s a sad commentary.”

So he hopes legislators will help bring a little more balance back to the scale.”

Brandon L. Garrett (University of Virginia School of Law) has posted Why Plea Bargains are Not Confessions (William & Mary Law Review, Vol. 56, 2015 Forthcoming) on SSRN.

Here is the abstract:

Is a plea bargain a type of confession? Plea-bargaining is often justified as at its core a process involving in-court confession. The U.S. Supreme Court’s early decisions approved plea bargains as something “more than a confession which admits that the accused did various acts.” I argue in this Article that plea bargains are not confessions — they do not even typically involve detailed admissions of guilt. The defendant generally admits to acts satisfying elements of the crime — a legally sufficient admission to be sure, but often not under oath, and often not supported by an extensive factual record. Because plea bargains typically contain only formulaic admissions, they have limited preclusive impact in future cases. The modern trend is to find issues not precluded by a guilty plea, except perhaps as to elements of the charged offense. The problem with the lack of adjudicated facts arises when other actors later seek to attach collateral consequences on that conviction. More careful development of the factual record could help to prevent at least some guilty pleas by innocent defendants, but also important, it could produce reforms to more narrowly target the collateral consequences that now attach to entire categories of convictions. That is why I view it as particularly important to understand precisely why plea bargains are not “more than” and are in fact much less than confessions.