While scholars have rightly focused on the importance of the landmark opinions of the United States Supreme Court and its Chief Justice, John Marshall, in the rise in influence of the Court in the Early Republic, the crucial role of the circuit courts in the development of a uniform system of federal law across the nation has largely been ignored. This book highlights the contribution of four Associate Justices (Washington, Livingston, Story and Thompson) as presiding judges of their respective circuit courts during the Marshall era, in order to establish that in those early years federal law grew from the 'inferior courts' upwards rather than down from the Supreme Court. It does so after a reading of over 1800 mainly circuit opinions and over 2000 original letters, which reveal the sources of law upon which the justices drew and their efforts through correspondence to achieve consistency across the circuits. The documents examined present insights into momentous social, political and economic issues facing the Union and demonstrate how these justices dealt with them on circuit. Particular attention is paid to the different ways in which each justice contributed to the shaping of United States law on circuit and on the Court and in the case of Justices Livingston and Thompson also during their time on the New York State Supreme Court.

A systematic and historical treatment of the civil and criminal procedure of Cicero's time. At the same time, the author examines the legal difficulties and contradictions found in Cicero's writings on procedure. With a subject index and index to passages found in Cicero's works. Of value to the student of Roman Law, ciminal and military procedure and law, and the history of European courts.

Winner, 2019 Outstanding Book Award, given by the American Society of Criminology's Division of Policing Section The first in-depth history and analysis of a much-abused policing policy No policing tactic has been more controversial than "stop and frisk," whereby police officers stop, question and frisk ordinary citizens, who they may view as potential suspects, on the streets. As Michael White and Hank Fradella show in Stop and Frisk, the first authoritative history and analysis of this tactic, there is a disconnect between our everyday understanding and the historical and legal foundations for this policing strategy. First ruled constitutional in 1968, stop and frisk would go on to become a central tactic of modern day policing, particularly by the New York City Police Department. By 2011 the NYPD recorded 685,000 'stop-question-and-frisk' interactions with citizens; yet, in 2013, a landmark decision ruled that the police had over- and mis-used this tactic. Stop and Frisk tells the story of how and why this happened, and offers ways that police departments can better serve their citizens. They also offer a convincing argument that stop and frisk did not contribute as greatly to the drop in New York's crime rates as many proponents, like former NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly and Mayor Michael Bloomberg, have argued. While much of the book focuses on the NYPD's use of stop and frisk, examples are also shown from police departments around the country, including Philadelphia, Baltimore, Chicago, Newark and Detroit. White and Fradella argue that not only does stop and frisk have a legal place in 21st-century policing but also that it can be judiciously used to help deter crime in a way that respects the rights and needs of citizens. They also offer insight into the history of racial injustice that has all too often been a feature of American policing's history and propose concrete strategies that every police department can follow to improve the way they police. A hard-hitting yet nuanced analysis, Stop and Frisk shows how the tactic can be a just act of policing and, in turn, shows how to police in the best interest of citizens.

Despite 15 years of reform efforts, the incarceration rate in the United States remains at an unprecedented high level. This book provides the first comprehensive survey of these reforms and explains why they have proven to be ineffective. After many decades of stability, the imprisonment rate in the United States quintupled between 1973 and 2003. Since then, nearly all states have adopted multiple reforms intended to reduce imprisonment, but the U.S. imprisonment rate has only decreased by a paltry two percent. Why are American sentencing reforms since 2000 been largely ineffective? Are tough mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent drug offenders the primary reason our prisons are always full? This book offers a fascinating assessment of the wave of sentencing reforms adopted by dozens of states as well as changes at the federal level since 2000, identifying common themes among seemingly disparate changes in sentencing policy and highlighting recent reform efforts that have been more successful and may point the way forward for the nation as a whole. In The Failed Promise of Sentencing Reform, author Michael O'Hear exposes the myths that American prison sentencing reforms enacted in the 21st century have failed to have the expected effect because U.S. prisons are filled to capacity with nonviolent drug offenders as a result of the "war on drugs," and because of new laws that took away the discretion of judges and corrections officials. O'Hear then makes a convincing case for the real reason sentencing reforms have come up short: because they exclude violent and sexual offenders, and because they rely on the discretion of officials who still have every incentive to be highly risk-averse. He also highlights how overlooking the well-being of offenders and their families in our consideration of sentencing reform has undermined efforts to effect real change. Clearly identifies the real reasons that the wave of post-2000 sentencing reform has had minimal impact on reducing national imprisonment rates Explains why reforms must target the excessive sentences imposed on violent and sexual offenders, even though the members of these offender groups are considered "justifiably punished" by long prison terms in the public eye Enables readers to understand why increased consideration for the well-being of offenders and their families is likely a prerequisite to the acceptance of more fundamental changes to the U.S. sentencing system

In Patel v Mirza [2016] UKSC 42, nine justices of the Supreme Court of England and Wales decided in favour of a restitutionary award in response to an unjust enrichment, despite the illegal transaction on which that enrichment was based. Whilst the result was reached unanimously, the reasoning could be said to have divided the Court. Lord Toulson, Lady Hale, Lord Kerr, Lord Wilson, Lord Hodge and Lord Neuberger favoured a discretionary approach, but their mode of reasoning was described as 'revolutionary' by Lord Sumption (at [261]), who outlined in contrast a more rule-based means of dealing with the issue; a method with which Lord Mance and Lord Clarke broadly agreed. The decision is detailed and complex, and its implications for several areas of the law are considerable. Significantly, the reliance principle from Tinsley v Milligan [1994] 1 AC 340 has been discarded, as has the rule in Parkinson v College of Ambulance Ltd [1925] KB 1. Patel v Mirza, therefore, can fairly be described as one of the most important judgments in general private law for a generation, and it can be expected to have ramifications for the application of the illegality doctrine across a wide range of disciplinary areas. Unless there is legislative intervention, which does not seem likely at the present time, Patel v Mirza is set to be of enduring significance. This collection will provide a crucial set of theoretical and practical perspectives on the illegality defence in English private law. All of the authors are well established in their respective fields. The timing of the book means that it will be unusually well placed as the 'go to' work on this subject, for legal practitioners and for scholars.

The inspirational ideas of Advocate General Francis Jacobs have been drawn together here for the first time in one volume. Fifteen leading EU law practitioners and academics have contributed, including both Sir Francis's predecessor and his successor, covering topics of current discussion in this continually evolving field. Each contributor deals with a discrete topic of EU law and discusses its evolution to date, its current state and its future development, always with specific reference to Sir Francis's opinions. Covering a diverse range of EU law topics, this book will be of great interest to anyone seeking a greater insight into the workings of the European Court of Justice and the role of the Advocate General, and also for anyone involved in the academic study of EU law or practising and litigating in the field. Making Community Law should provide a rich treasury of ideas, explaining both the current state of EU jurisprudence as well as considering the next steps in the making of EU law.

The Ouija board jury incident of 1994 is one of the most disconcerting in English legal history, possibly (says the author) 'the nadir of reported juror misbehaviour in the 20th-century'. But, as Professor Jeremy Gans shows, in an era of soundbites it has been distorted by the media whilst even eminent lawyers have sometimes got the story wrong. In this first full-length treatment he emphasises the known facts, the constitutional dilemma of investigating even bizarre jury misbehaviour and how the trial involved one of the most serious murder cases of the decade in which two people were shot in cold blood. Stephen Young's conviction after a re-trial is still claimed to be a miscarriage of justice by some people, as to which Gans puts forward his own ingenious solution. But quite apart from analysing the facts of R v Young, this book is a tour de force on jury misbehaviour in which the author also examines the implications for example of winks and nods, research by jurors, speaking or listening out of turn, going to sleep during the hearing or falling in love with one of the advocates. Amusing at first sight, such events involve deep questions of law, practice and democratic involvement in the Criminal Justice process. Far from being a mere anecdote, the case of the Ouija board jurors, the misconceptions about it and the issues it leads to deserve close study by anyone who is even remotely interested in jury trial. The first full length treatment of an iconic case. Dispels the myths that have built-up around it. Looks at other instances of jury misbehaviour. Shows how the courts and Parliament have wrestled with problems of this kind. A first-rate analysis of a baffling double murder.

In recent years collective litigation procedures have spread across the globe, accompanied by hot controversy and normative debate. Yet virtually nothing is known about how these procedures operate in practice. Based on extensive documentary and interview research, this volume presents the results of the first comparative investigation of class actions and group litigation 'in action'. Produced by a multinational team of legal scholars, this book spans research from ten different countries in the Americas, Europe, Asia and the Middle East, including common law and civil law jurisdictions. The contributors conclude that to understand how class actions work in practice, one needs to know the cultural factors that shape claiming, the financial arrangements that enable or impede litigation, and how political actors react when mass claims erupt. Substantive law and procedural rules matter, but culture, economics and politics matter at least as much. This book will be of interest to students and scholars of law, business and politics. It will also be of use to public policy makers looking to respond to mass claims; financial analysts looking to understanding the potential impact of new legal instruments; and global lawyers who litigate transnationally. Contributors: A. Barroilhet, C. Cameron, N. Creutzfeldt, M.A. Gomez, A. Halfmeier, D.R. Hensler, C. Hodges, K.-C. Huang, J. Kalajdzic, A. Klement, B. Stier, E. Thornburg, I. Tzankova, S. Voet

International Arbitration: Issues, Perspectives and Practice is a three-part compendium of contributions annotated to reflect Neil Kaplan’s over 40-year career as a Judge of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong. Neil is widely referred to as the ‘father of arbitration in Hong Kong’ who has gone on to become one of the members of the upper echelons of the ‘great and the good’ of international arbitration.

On the occasion of his 75th birthday, Neil Kaplan’s unparalleled influence in the field of international arbitration is celebrated in this book which comprises contributions from over twenty-five renowned international arbitration practitioners, all of whom credit Kaplan as having impacted the development of arbitration in their respective jurisdictions or professionally.

Negotiation, understood simply as "working things out by talking things through," is often anything but simple for Native nations engaged with federal, state, and local governments to solve complex issues, promote economic and community development, and protect and advance their legal and historical rights. Power Balance builds on traditional Native values and peacemaking practices to equip tribes today with additional tools for increasing their negotiating leverage. As cofounder and executive director of the Indian Dispute Resolution Service, author Steven J. Haberfeld has worked with Native tribes for more than forty years to help resolve internal differences and negotiate complex transactions with governmental, political, and private-sector interests. Drawing on that experience, he combines Native ideas and principles with the strategies of "interest-based negotiation" to develop a framework for overcoming the unique structural challenges of dealing with multilevel government agencies. His book offers detailed instructions for mastering six fundamental steps in the negotiating process, ranging from initial planning and preparation to hammering out a comprehensive, written win-win agreement. With real-life examples throughout, Power Balance outlines measures tribes can take to maximize their negotiating power-by leveraging their special legal rights and historical status and by employing political organizing strategies to level the playing field in obtaining their rightful benefits. Haberfeld includes a case study of the precedent-setting negotiation between the Timbisha Shoshone Tribe and four federal agencies that resolved disputes over land, water, and other natural resource in Death Valley National Park in California. Bringing together firsthand experience, traditional Native values, and the most up-to-date legal principles and practices, this how-to book will be an invaluable resource for tribal leaders and lawyers seeking to develop and refine their negotiating skills and strategies.

Dr. Lee P. Brown, one of America's most significant and respected law enforcement practitioners, has harnessed his thirty years of experiences in police work and authored Policing in the 21st Century: Community Policing. Written for students, members of the police community, academicians, elected officials and members of the public, this work comes from the perspective of an individual who devoted his life to law enforcement. Dr. Brown began his career as a beat patrolmen who through hard work, diligence and continued education became the senior law enforcement official in three of this nation's largest cities. The book is about Community Policing, the policing style for America in the Twenty-First Century. It not only describes the concept in great detail, but it also illuminates how it evolved, and how it is being implemented in various communities throughout America. There is no other law enforcement official or academician who is as capable as Dr. Brown of masterfully presenting the concept of Community Policing, which he pioneered. As a philosophy, Community Policing encourages law enforcement officials, and the people they are sworn to serve, to cooperatively address issues such as crime, community growth, and societal development. It calls for mutual respect and understanding between the police and the community. The book is written from the perspective of someone whose peers identify as the "father" of Community Policing, and who personally implemented it in Police Departments under his command. It is a thoroughly amazing book that has been heralded as a "must read" for anyone who has an interest in law enforcement. Elected officials, academicians, leaders of the nation's police agencies and members of the public will be captivated by Dr. Brown's literary contribution.

This book presents a selection of the latest arbitration cases, materials, and commentaries from China. It aims to provide information on the theory and practice of arbitration combined. It is intended to provide readers with a useful resource to guide them when they encounter actual China-related arbitration cases. This book is a valuable resource for all practitioners concerned with international and foreign-related arbitration matters in China, global law firms, companies engaged in multinational business, jurists, and academics.

How often is the defense of insanity or temporary insanity for accused criminals valid-or is it ever legitimate? This unique work presents multidisciplinary viewpoints that explain, support, and critique the insanity defense as it stands. What is the role of "the insanity defense" as a legal excuse? How does U.S. law handle criminal trials where the defendant pleads insanity, and how does our legal system's treatment differ from those of other countries or cultures? How are insanity defenses used, and how successful are these defenses for the accused? What are the costs of incarceration versus psychiatric treatment and confinement? This book presents a range of expert viewpoints on the insanity defense, exposing common myths; investigating its effectiveness and place in our legal system through history, case studies, and comparative analysis; and supplying perspectives from the disciplines of psychology, psychiatry, sociology, and neuroscience. The content also addresses the ramifications of declaring citizens insane or incapacitated and examines trials that involved pleas of insanity and temporary insanity. Presents multidisciplinary coverage of this important topic-one that is typically polarizing for members of the general public Includes discussions of new advances in neuroscience that have revived debates regarding free will, culpability, and punishment Illustrates points with widely publicized and televised trials that have recently increased public awareness of the insanity defense as well as heated debates over its justification