Questioning of Federal Judge Appointees

Anyone interested in seeing how members of the Senate Judiciary Committee question people appointed by the President to fill lower federal court vacancies should check out this video. The five people being questioned are appointees from U.S. District Court Judge. As a trail judge, they will be responsible for ensuring that the parties are treated fairly and the trial operates according to well established procedural rules.

In class I have mentioned that while the qualifications to be a federal judge are not spelled out in the Constitution, the Senate usually takes its constitutional duty of "advice and consent" rather seriously. The Senator asking the questions in this video is a Republican. Thus, he is asking questions of people who were nominated by a Republican President to be a federal court judge. Recently, the Chair of the Senate Judicial Committee, also a Republican, expressed concern about some of President Trump's nominees for the federal judiciary

When Judges Are Called for Jury Duty

Recently the Chief Justice of the Kansas Supreme Court was called for jury. The Topeka Capital-Journal reports that when the judge:

reported for duty on Tuesday, he came to court expecting to serve. He checked in at the jury coordinator’s office, watched the orientation film about jury duty, then waited for the trial to start. . . . However, the defendant in what was expected to be a one- or two-day trial pleaded guilty to felony theft, and a jury wasn’t needed. Nuss (the Chief Justice) was one of 52 Shawnee County residents summoned for duty in that pool of prospective jurors.

According to the Capital-Journal, this was actually the third time the Chief Justice has been called to jury duty, however, the first two did not result in him actually needing to serve.

Supreme Court Preview Podcast

Looking for some legal listening to improve your legal English, expand your knowledge of American Constitutional Law and be in the know about what is coming up this term in the U.S. Supreme Court? You can do no better than the Amicus podcast featuring the Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union (my former employer). If you do a quick Google search for "Supreme Court Preview 2017 Term" you will find all kinds of previews from various points of view.

First Monday in October

Legal watchers in the United States know exactly what "the first Monday in October" means. This is the day on which each new term of the U.S. Supreme Court begins. But why the first Monday in October? The Constitution Daily blog explains.

Jurors told not to surf the web

Jurors in England will soon be told that surfing the web while serving as a juror in search of information related to the case or parties is strictly verboten. As Law Society Gazette reports:

The juror notice states that it is illegal for jurors 'to look for any information at all about your case on the internet or anywhere else during the trial or to have anyone else look for you'.

Jurors cannot look for any information about: any person involved in the case, including the judge and legal teams; the law and legal terms used in the case; the crime or crime scene; and court procedures.

Removing a Juror Who Relied on a "Higher Power"

A local Jacksonville, Florida news station recently reported that a U.S. District Court judge removed a juror who claimed she would rely on a "higher power" to help her decide the case. First Coast News reports:

A juror said he’d been told by "My Father in Heaven” that former Congresswoman Corrine Brown was not guilty in the federal case against her, according to a transcript released late Monday. “Did you say the words, ‘A higher being told me that Corrine Brown was not guilty on all charges?’” U.S. District Judge Timothy Corrigan asked Juror 13, according to the transcript.“No,” the juror responded. “I said the Holy Spirit told me.”

This conversation took place after the case was finished as the jury was about to deliberate. Fellow jurors who overhead the juror make a similar statement brought their concerns to the Judge's attention, which ultimately led to her removal form the case. It illustrates the power judges have to remove jurors in order to avoid potential irregularities in the trial.

Showing Movie Not an Appealable Error

The Hollywood Reporter recently ran an article entitled "Appeals Court: Ben Affleck's 'The Town' Didn't Prejudice Bank Robbery Trial." At issue was whether showing the jury this movie improperly influenced it:

The 2012 robbery of a Pay‐O‐Matic check‐cashing store in Queens, New York, which may have drawn inspiration from Ben Affleck's 2010 film, The Town, earned substantial attention from the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday. Although judges on the circuit were at odds on whether clips from the movie should have been shown to jurors during the trial charging three men with the crime, the appeals court ultimately decides not to reverse their armed bank robbery convictions.

The argument used by prosecutors was that the movie helped the defendants plan their heist. Lawyers for the defendants asked the judge to prohibit the movie from being shown, but the judged overruled their objection. This ruling on the movie amounted to grounds for appeal after the defendants were convicted. While this opened the door to an appeals hearing, it didn't, according the appeals court, amount to error that improperly prejudiced the jury.

In her dissent, Judge Analisa Torres wrote: that the "goal of commercial cinema is to thrill and entertain," and that movie-making is a "manipulative art." She further contended that there was a high risk that a juror "might conflate fiction and reality is obvious," and she noted that while the issue had never been addressed by her court "other courts have expressed deep distress about such evidence’s impact on the jury."

What "Breaking Up" the 9th Circuit Means

In an "exclusive interview" with the Washington Examiner, President Trump shared his views on breaking up the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. As students in my courses know, the federal appeals court in the United States is divided up geographically (see the map above). The 9th Circuit is huge, and discussions about breaking it up are nothing new. However, the reasons usually given for breaking it up is its size, not its ideology. To be sure, conservatives in the United States loath the 9th Circuit because of its perceived liberal bias, but breaking it up into smaller pieces will not change the ideology of the judges serving in this part of the country. Nor will it stop the so-called "forum shopping" mentioned by the President in this "exclusive interview."

The lines in the interview that really caught my attention are these:

"Absolutely, I have," Trump said of considering 9th Circuit breakup proposals during a far-ranging interview with the Washington Examiner at the White House. "There are many people that want to break up the 9th Circuit. It's outrageous."

"Everybody immediately runs to the 9th Circuit. And we have a big country. We have lots of other locations. But they immediately run to the 9th Circuit. Because they know that's like, semi-automatic," Trump said.

From reading this, I cannot help but think the President believes that breaking up the Ninth Circuit means he gets to fire the judges. Of course he does not. Instead, what breaking up the Court would mean is a few new geographical (or regional) circuits would be formed, and current judges from those regions would simply remain on the new appeals court for their region.  Furthermore, there is nothing in the process of breaking up the circuit that would prevent the dreaded forum shopping that results in "semi-automatic" rulings. 

How the Next Supreme Court Justice Will be Chosen

It is expected that one of the first official acts that will be undertaken by President Trump is the appointment of a U.S. Supreme Court Justice. The National Constitution Center has a very informative piece up on its website about how this process will play out.

$19 Million Spent By Outside Groups on Judicial Elections

How we select our judges in the United States is perhaps one of the things that surprises students in my introduction courses the most. Almost three quarters of the states in the United States place the names of judges on election ballots, and let the voters decide whether they should remain on the bench. Some do this using a process called retention, while others allow for open, competitive elections, just like any other elected office.

As is the norm in the United States, most people obtain their information about candidates for elected office via television commercials. These commercials are usually sponsored by the candidates themselves, but increasingly outside political action groups are funding commercials for the candidate of their choice. The same holds true for judicial elections. According to the Marshall Project, political action groups not directly affiliated with a political party or a candidate spent over $19 million on judicial elections this past election cycle.  The article goes on to note that this spending for the most part failed to unseat their intended targets. This, however, will likely not dissuade people from contributing to these efforts in the future.

Those interested in a amusing take on the idea of electing judges should watch the John Oliver piece above. Be warned, this is HBO, so the language might be a little rough.

New ECHR Video

A bit off topic, but I recently came across a great video (in English) explaining the role of the European Court of Human Rights. Very well done!

Judges as Politicians

The election of judges in the United States (no all, and none at the federal level) is perhaps one of the more surprising aspects of the American legal system that my students encounter. The idea, as I have noted on this blog before (here, here, here and here) is quite controversial but based on the belief that judges will be more accountable to the public if they have to stand for election. Adam Liptak of the New York Times recently noted that judges who are elected act a lot like politicians. His piece is worth a read for an overview of some of the recent studies conducted looking at the impact of elections on judicial decision making.

Supreme Court Caseload

Lyle Denniston of the National Constitutional Center has a wonderful short piece explaining why/how the Supreme Court can avoid important cases, especially in light of it being short-handed at the moment. As students in my courses learn, the Court receives thousands of petitions for appeal each year but usually only hears about 80 of them.

When Judges Get Punished

Something interesting is going on in Alabama. For the second time, Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice (an elected position) Roy Moore is going before a judicial misconduct panel because he violated the rules that judges in Alabama must play by. This time he is before the panel for ordering all state court judges to ignore a U.S. Supreme Court ruling making same-gender marriages legal. The point here is that judges in the United States can be and are punished for violating codes of ethics that all judges must follow.

The Politics of Picking Judges

As students in my courses have or will learn, federal judges in the United States are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. While this process clearly involves politicians and politics, there are many who believe that the selection process should not and cannot be politicized. While I tend to agree with the goal, I do think it ignores the reality of today's hyper-partisan America. The Washington Post recently chastised both candidates for President for making the nomination of next Supreme Court Justice a centerpiece of their campaigns. The short editorial is worth a read. 

The Candidates and the Constitution

Slate magazine recently asked who would do more harm to the constitution. Their results can be found here. A word of caution, Slate tends to lean to the left, which surely colors how it defines "damage." Nevertheless, this is a good read for anyone interested in how an election for the presidency can potentially impact the constitution. 

Electing Judges

Just wanted to call attention to an interesting (and short!) podcast from National Public Radio about how state judicial elections in the United States are becoming increasingly political. It sounds obvious that an election would be political, but some elections (called retention votes) traditionally were not mired in ideological battles. But this has slowly been changing, as the podcast nicely points out.

Checks and Balances on Display in Supreme Court Nominee Battle?

Students in all my course by now know, if they didn't before, that the U.S. Supreme Court is starting its term this year short-handed. The death of Justice Antonin Scalia in February left a vacancy on the court that still has not been filled because the U.S. Senate refuses to vote on President Obama's nominee for the position. The President recently weighed in on this. Its worth the read if only to get a better understanding of how the system works, or doesn't.

Supreme Meals

The Washington Post recently posted an article about how the Justices of the United States Court get along with one another despite some very stark disagreements over the law. The secret appears to be good wine, elaborate meals and no talk about work.

Minority Judges in England

My favorite UK legal blog "Legal Cheek" recently reported something we talked about in my course "Introduction to Common Law Legal System," namely the dearth of minority judges in England.

Stats from the Judicial Appointments Commission show that, of the lawyers who applied to be recorders (low-level judges) last year, only 10% of BME candidates were ever shortlisted. This is compared to 20% of white candidates. Of those who made the shortlist, 29% of BME lawyers were recommended for appointment. This is 17 percentage points less than the corresponding figure for white lawyers (46%).
It should also be noted that, since 2012, not a single BME candidate has applied to or been appointed to the Court of Appeal.

One reason cited for the changes made by the 2005 judicial selection reforms was the desire to diversify the bench in England. While the bench most surely has become more diverse, it appears that there is still a lot of work to do.