View the Table of Contents.
Read the Introduction.

"Lee's book is a compelling and well-informed analysis of the issues raised when courts confront questions of reasonableness in high-profile, headline-grabbing cases."
-- "Choice"

"Lee challenges readers to question the concept of 'reasonableness' and how it has been applied. . . Scholars, students, professionals and the educated public will appreciate the careful, well-documented argument and pertinent examples."
--"Library Journal"

"Ms. Lee offers an extended argument for reforming the provocation doctrine by requiring judges and jurors to reflect more carefully about the reasonableness of the defendant's behavior."
--"The Chronicle of Higher Education"

aEven readers who do not view Leeas recommendations through a theoretical lens will be drawn to Leeas suggestions as practical solutions to the complicated social norms problem she has identified."
--"Michigan Law Review"

"Provocative and persuasive. In this well-written and meticulously documented book, Cynthia Lee demonstrates how the law has defined 'reasonableness' in criminal law to favor men against women, straight men against gay men, and whites against blacks. Lee's synthesis of many seemingly different examples, with thoughtful responses to the various objections that might be raised, is legal scholarship that can make a difference in our social practices. This is a serious and compelling book that should lead to reform."
--Frank H. Wu, author of "Yellow: Race in America beyond Black and White"

A man murders his wife after she has admitted her infidelity; another man kills an openly gay teammate after receiving a massage; a third man, white, goes for a jog in a "bad" neighborhood, carrying a pistol, and shoots an African American teenager who had his hands in his pockets. When brought before the criminal justice system, all three men argue that they should be found "not guilty"; the first two use the defense of provocation, while the third argues he used his gun in self-defense.

Drawing upon these and similar cases, Cynthia Lee shows how two well-established, traditional criminal law defenses--the doctrines of provocation and self-defense--enable majority-culture defendants to justify their acts of violence. While the reasonableness requirement, inherent in both defenses, is designed to allow community input and provide greater flexibility in legal decision-making, the requirement also allows majority-culture defendants to rely on dominant social norms, such as masculinity, heterosexuality, and race (i.e., racial stereotypes), to bolster their claims of reasonableness. At the same time, Lee examines other cases that demonstrate that the reasonableness requirement tends to exclude the perspectives of minorities, such as heterosexual women, gays and lesbians, and persons of color.

Murder and the Reasonable Man not only shows how largely invisible social norms and beliefs influence the outcomes of certain criminal cases, but goes further, suggesting three tentative legal reforms to address problems of bias and undue leniency. Ultimately, Lee cautions that the true solution lies in a change in social attitudes.

View the Table of Contents. Read the Introduction.

aWell-written, needed, and nicely done.a
--"Choice"

"Ward and Weiden have produced that rare book that is both a meticulous piece of scholarship and a good read. The authors have . . . sifted through a varied and voluminous amount of archival material, winnowing out the chaff and leaving the excellent wheat for our consumption. They marry this extensive archival research with original survey data, using both to great effect."
--"Law and Politics Book Review"

"Helps illuminate the inner workings of an institution that is still largely shrouded in mystery."
--"The Wall Street Journal Online"

"The main quibble . . . with contemporary law clerks is that they wield too much influence over their justices' opinion-writing. Artemus and Weiden broaden this concern to the clerks' influence on the thinking of the justices about how to decide cases."
--"Slate.com"

aProvides excellent insight into the inner workings of the Supreme Court, how it selects cases for review, what pressures are brought to bear on the justices, and how the final opinions are produced. Recommended for all academic libraries.a
--"Library Journal"

aArtemus Ward and David L. Weiden argue that the clerks have more power than they used to have, and probably more power than they should.a
--"Washington Post"

aThe book contains a wealth of historical information. . . . A reader can learn a lot from this pioneering study.a
--"Cleveland Plain Dealer"

aMeticulous in scholarship. . . . Sorcerers' Apprentices presents convincing statistical evidence that the aggregate time that law clerks spend on certiorari memos has fallen considerablybecause of the reduction in the number of memos written by each clerk.a
--Judge Richard A. Posner in "The New Republic"

aWard and Weiden have produced that rare book that is both a meticulous piece of scholarship and a good read.a
-- The Law and Politics Book Review

aBased on judicial working papers and extensive interviews, the authors have compiled the most complete picture to date of the transformation of Supreme Court law clerks from stenographers to ghost-writers. This will instantly become an essential resource for students of the Court.a
--Dennis J. Hutchinson, editor of "The Supreme Court Review"

"A truly excellent study on an interesting and important question. As we know from the popularity of "The Brethren" and "Closed Chambers," people love insider accounts of Supreme Court decision making, and this book provides that from a very unique point of view."
--Howard Gillman, author of "The Votes That Counted: How the Court Decided the 2000 Presidential Election"

"An urgently needed and highly readable study of the most powerful young lawyers in America: law clerks at the Supreme Court. Law clerks themselves tend to vastly overstate or underestimate their importance, but authors Artemus Ward and David Weiden have gotten it just right: law clerks wield significant and growing power at the nation's highest court. This eye-opening book charts that growth and points to the potential for abuse."
--Tony Mauro, Supreme Court Correspondent for "American Lawyer Media"

a...[E]xceptionally informative in tracing the history of the institution of the Supreme Court clerks. The analysis of the evolution of both the job and the influence that clerks have on theCourtas decisions.a
--"Georgia Bar Journal"

Law clerks have been a permanent fixture in the halls of the United States Supreme Court from its founding, but the relationship between clerks and their justices has generally been cloaked in secrecy. While the role of the justice is both public and formal, particularly in terms of the decisions a justice makes and the power that he or she can wield in the American political system, the clerk has historically operated behind closed doors. Do clerks make actual decisions that they impart to justices, or are they only research assistants that carry out the instructions of the decision makersathe justices?

Based on Supreme Court archives, the personal papers of justices and other figures at the Supreme Court, and interviews and written surveys with 150 former clerks, Sorcerersa Apprentices is a rare behind-the-scenes look at the life of a law clerk, and how it has evolved since its nineteenth-century beginnings. Artemus Ward and David L. Weiden reveal that throughout history, clerks have not only written briefs, but made significant decisions about cases that are often unseen by those outside of justices' chambers. Should clerks have this power, they ask, and, equally important, what does this tell us about the relationship between the Supreme Courtas accountability to and relationship with the American public?

Sorcerers' Apprentices not only sheds light on the little-known role of the clerk but offers provocative suggestions for reforming the institution of the Supreme Court clerk. Anyone that has worked as a law clerk, is considering clerking, or is interested in learning about what happens in the chambers of Supreme Court justiceswill want to read this engaging and comprehensive examination of how the role of the law clerk has evolved over its long history.

Winner, Next Generation Indie Book Awards - Women's Nonfiction Best Book of 2020, National Law Journal The inspiring and previously untold history of the women considered-but not selected-for the US Supreme Court In 1981, Sandra Day O'Connor became the first female justice on the United States Supreme Court after centuries of male appointments, a watershed moment in the long struggle for gender equality. Yet few know about the remarkable women considered in the decades before her triumph. Shortlisted tells the overlooked stories of nine extraordinary women-a cohort large enough to seat the entire Supreme Court-who appeared on presidential lists dating back to the 1930s. Florence Allen, the first female judge on the highest court in Ohio, was named repeatedly in those early years. Eight more followed, including Amalya Kearse, a federal appellate judge who was the first African American woman viewed as a potential Supreme Court nominee. Award-winning scholars Renee Knake Jefferson and Hannah Brenner Johnson cleverly weave together long-forgotten materials from presidential libraries and private archives to reveal the professional and personal lives of these accomplished women. In addition to filling a notable historical gap, the book exposes the tragedy of the shortlist. Listing and bypassing qualified female candidates creates a false appearance of diversity that preserves the status quo, a fate all too familiar for women, especially minorities. Shortlisted offers a roadmap to combat enduring bias and discrimination. It is a must-read for those seeking positions of power as well as for the powerful who select them in the legal profession and beyond.

Terrorism has become an everyday reality in most contemporary societies. In a context of heightened fear can juries be trusted to remain impartial when confronted by defendants charged with terrorism? Do they scrutinize prosecution cases carefully, or does emotion trump reason once the spectre of terrorism is invoked? This book examines these questions from a range of disciplinary perspectives. The authors look at the how jurors in terrorism trials are likely to respond to gruesome evidence, including beheading videos. The 'CSI effect' is examined as a possible response to forensic evidence, and jurors with different learning preferences are compared. Virtual interactive environments, built like computer games, may be created to provide animated reconstructions of the prosecution or defence case. This book reports on how to create such presentations, culminating in the analysis of a live simulated trial using interactive visual displays followed by jury deliberations. The team of international, transdisciplinary experts draw conclusions of global legal and political significance, and contribute to the growing scholarship on comparative counter-terrorism law. The book will be of great interest to scholars, students and practitioners of law, criminal justice, forensic science and psychology.

This edited collection addresses the major issues encountered in the calculation of economic damages to individuals in civil litigation. In federal and state courts in the United States, as well as in other nations, when one party sues another, the suing party is required not only to prove that the harm was, indeed, caused by the other party, but also to claim and demonstrate that a specified dollar value represents just compensation for the harm. Forensic economists are often called upon to evaluate, measure, and opine on the degree of economic loss that is alleged to have occurred. Aimed at both practitioners and theorists, the original articles and essays in the edited collection are written by nationally recognized and widely published forensic experts. Its strength is in showcasing theories, methods, and measurements as they differ in a variety of cases, and in its review of the forensic economics literature developed over the past thirty years. Readers will find informative discussions of topics such as establishing earnings capacity for both adults and infants, worklife probability, personal consumption deductions, taxation as treated in federal and state courts, valuing fringe benefits, discounting theory and practice, the effects of the Affordable Care Act, the valuation of personal services, wrongful discharge, hedonics, effective communication by the expert witness, and ethical issues. The volume also covers surveys of the views of practicing forensic economists, the connection between law and forensic economics, alternatives to litigation in the form of VCF-like schedules, and key differences among nations in measuring economic damages.

Judicial authority is constituted by everyday practices of individual judicial officers, balancing the obligations of formal law and procedure with the distinctive interactional demands of lower courts. Performing Judicial Authority in the Lower Courts draws on extensive original, independent empirical data to identify different ways judicial officers approach and experience their work. It theorizes the meanings of these variations for the legitimate performance of judicial authority. The central theoretical and empirical finding presented in this book is the incomplete fit between conventional norms of judicial performance, emphasizing detachment and impersonality, and the practical, day-to-day judicial work in high volume, time-pressured lower courts. Understanding the judicial officer as the crucial link between formal abstract law, the legal institution of the court and the practical tasks of the courtroom, generates a more complete theory of judicial legitimacy which includes the manner in which judicial officers present themselves and communicate their decisions in court.

Over the last fifteen years, the analytical field of punishment and society has witnessed an increase of research developing the connection between economic processes and the evolution of penality from different standpoints, focusing particularly on the increase of rates of incarceration in relation to the transformations of neoliberal capitalism. Bringing together leading researchers from diverse geographical contexts, this book reframes the theoretical field of the political economy of punishment, analysing penality within the current economic situation and connecting contemporary penal changes with political and cultural processes. It challenges the traditional and common sense understanding of imprisonment as 'exclusion' and posits a more promising concept of imprisonment as a 'differential' or 'subordinate' form of 'inclusion'. This groundbreaking book will be a key text for scholars who are working in the field of punishment and society as well as reaching a broader audience within law, sociology, economics, criminology and criminal justice studies.

This book analyses the mixed courts of professional and lay judges in the Japanese criminal justice system. It takes a particular focus on the highly public start of the mixed court, the saiban-in system, and the jury system between 1928-1943. This was the first time Japanese citizens participated as decision makers in criminal law. The book assesses reasons for the jury system's failure, and its suspension in 1943, as well as the renewed interest in popular involvement in criminal justice at the end of the twentieth century. Popular Participation in Japanese Criminal Justice proceeds by explaining the process by which lay participation in criminal trials left the periphery to become an important national matter at the turn of the century. It shows that rather than an Anglo-American jury model, outline recommendations made by the Japanese Judicial Reform Council were for a mixed court of judges and laypersons to try serious cases. Concerns about the lay judge/saiban-in system are raised, as well as explanations for why it is flourishing in contemporary society despite the failure of the jury system during the period 1928-1943. The book presents the wider significance of Japanese mixed courts in Asia and beyond, and in doing so will be of great interests to scholars of socio-legal studies, criminology and criminal justice.

In modern societies, full criminal trials are avoided on many occasions. This book is concerned with mechanisms that either divert from or speed up the proceedings. Koen Vriend argues that the fair trial rights as established by the European Court of Human Rights under Article 6 ECHR provide a normative framework that does not only apply in a full criminal trial, but that it can also be used for diverted and shortened proceedings. He shows that the concept of fairness-as derived from ECtHR case law-is a fundamental principle that underlies all criminal law enforcement. It provides for the appropriate framework to assess whether diverted or shortened proceedings are fair and legitimate. The book is intended for criminal law scholars and practitioners and human rights scholars. Dr. Koen Vriend is a Lecturer of Criminal Law and Criminal Procedural Law at the University of Amsterdam.

The book is a brief journey through centuries and jurisdictions and expands on examples of enactment practices of states that support, challenge or even reject communication during pending litigations. England, as the main representative of a jurisdiction, suggests communication solutions potentially different than the practice in the United States where litigation communication first time occurred. Accordingly, the author offers a comprehensive analysis and detailed historical narrative of the positions of various jurisdictions in relation to communication in the legal process. As a kind of applied legal history, the book provides an exploration of historical events that were significant in a legal communication context and addresses their implications for modern enactments. The account looks at the history of regulations to allow a better understanding of the strict rules that have often been cited over the years support or restrict communication in the legal process. The author provides the reader with proper contexts on different judicial and communication considerations, as well as the collaboration of legal and public relations experts, in a particular form of crisis and reputation management, in the litigation process. As such, this book is an attempt to present an accurate and thoughtful account of the theory and history of litigation communication, which is directly relevant in various debates such as the work on the meaning and context of the Contempt of Court Act in England or the American First and Sixth Amendments in different centuries.

This book illuminates the decision-making processes of the US Supreme court through an examination of several prisoners' rights cases. In 1964, the Supreme Court declined to hear prisoners' claims about religious freedom. In 2014, the Supreme Court heard a case that led to the justices' unanimous endorsement of a Muslim prisoner's religious right to grow a beard despite objections from prison officials. In the fifty-year span between those two events, the Supreme Court developed the law concerning rights for imprisoned offenders. As demonstrated in this book, the factors that shape Supreme Court decision making are well-illustrated by prisoners' rights cases. This area of law illuminates competing approaches to constitutional interpretation, behind-the-scenes interactions among the justices, and the manipulation of legal precedents. External actors also affect the Supreme Court and its decisions when the president appoints new justices and Congress targets the judiciary with legislative enactments. Because of the controversial nature of prisoners' rights issues, these cases serve to illuminate the full array of influences over Supreme Court decision making.

This book shows the surprising dynamism of the field of civil procedure through its examination of a cross section of recent developments within civil procedure from around the world. It explores the field through specific approaches to its study, within specific legal systems, and within discrete sub-fields of civil procedure. The book reflects the latest research and conveys the dynamism and innovations of modern civil procedure - by field, method and system. The book's introductory chapters lay the groundwork for researchers to appreciate the flux and change within the field. The concluding chapters bring the many different identified innovations and developments together to show the field's ability to adapt to modern circumstances, while retaining its coherence even across different legal systems, traditions, fields and analytic approaches. Specifically, in this book the presence of dynamism is explored in the legal systems of the EU, France, the US, Brazil, Australia, the UK and China. So too that dynamism is explored in the contributions' analyses and discussions of the changes or need for change of specific aspects of civil procedure including litigation costs, class actions, derivative actions, pleadings, and res judicata. Furthermore, most of the individual contributions may be considered to be comparative analyses of their respective subjects and, when considered as a whole, the book presents the dynamism of civil procedure in comparative perspective. Those discrete and aggregated comparative analyses permit us to better understand the dynamism in civil procedure - for change in the abstract can be less visible and its significance and impact less evident. While similar conclusions may have been drawn through examinations in isolation, employing comparative analytic methods provided a richer analysis and any identified need for change is correspondingly advanced through comparative analysis. Furthermore, if that analysis leads to a conclusion that change is necessary then comparative law may provide pertinent examples for such change - as well as methodologies for successfully transplanting any such changes. In other words, as this book so well reflects, comparative law may itself usefully contribute to dynamism in civil procedure. This has long been a raison d'etre of comparative law and, as clear from this book's contributions, in this particular time and field of study we find that it is very likely to achieve its lofty promise.

This book focuses on the analysis of liability rules of tort law from an efficiency perspective, presenting a comprehensive analysis of these rules in a self-contained and rigorous yet accessible manner. It establishes general results on the efficiency of liability rules, including complete characterizations of efficient liability rules and efficient incremental liability rules. The book also establishes that the untaken precaution approach and decoupled liability are incompatible with efficiency. The economic analysis of tort law has established that for efficiency it is necessary that each party to the interaction must be made to internalize the harm resulting from the interaction. The characterization and impossibility theorems presented in this book establish that, in addition to internalization of the harm by each party, there are two additional requirements for efficiency. Firstly, rules must be immune from strategic manipulation. Secondly, rules must entail closure with respect to the parties involved in the interaction giving rise to the negative externality, i.e., the liability must not be decoupled.

Acclaimed as the "the most objective prosecutors in the world", the German prosecution service has long attracted the attention in the past of comparative law scholars. At first glance, the institutional position and statutory mandate of German prosecutors indicate that that reputation is well-deserved. Unfortunately, the introduction of charge-bargaining has opened the door to criticism that German prosecutors have abandoned their role of objective decision-makers. Using interview data collected from interviews with German prosecutors themselves as well as quantitative data, the book uses the actual voices of German prosecutors to show how real-world constraints, rather than changes in the law, undermine the ability of German prosecutors to objectively seek the truth. The book will take readers behind closed doors where prosecutors discuss case decisions and unveil the realities of practice. As a result, it will critically revise previous studies of German prosecution practices and offer readers a well-researched ethnographic analysis of actual German decision-making practices and the culture of the prosecution service. Unlike prosecutors in America's adversarial system, whom critics claim are driven by a "conviction-mentality" and gamesmanship, German prosecutors are institutionally positioned to function as (at least semi-)judicial officials dedicated to finding a case's objective truth. The book argues that, organizational incentives and norms, rather than the boundaries of the law determinately shapes how prosecutors investigate and prosecute crime in Germany.

Constitutional litigation in general attracts two distinct types of conflict: disputes of a highly politicized or culturally controversial nature and requests from citizens claiming a violation of a fundamental constitutional right. The side-by-side comparison between the U.S. Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court provides a novel socio-legal approach in studying constitutional litigation, focusing on conditions of mobilisation, decision-making and implementation. This updated and revised second edition includes a number of new contributions on the political status of the courts in their democratic political cultures.

Explores the challenges of governing in a post-truth world The relationship between truth and politics has rarely seemed more troubled, with misinformation on the rise, and the value of expertise in democratic decision-making increasingly being dismissed. In Truth and Evidence, the latest installment in the NOMOS series, Melissa Schwartzberg and Philip Kitcher bring together a distinguished group of interdisciplinary scholars in political science, law, and philosophy to explore the most pressing questions about the role of truth, evidence, and knowledge in government. In nine timely essays, contributors examine what constitutes political knowledge, who counts as an expert, how we should weigh evidence, and what can be done to address deep disinformation. Together, they address urgent questions such as what facts we require to confront challenges like COVID-19; what it means to #BelieveWomen; and how white supremacy shapes the law of evidence. Essential reading for our fraught political moment, Truth and Evidence considers the importance of truth in the face of widespread efforts to turn it into yet another tool of political power.

In the first comprehensive study of election law since the Supreme Court decided "Bush v. Gore," Richard L. Hasen rethinks the Court's role in regulating elections. Drawing on the case files of the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist courts, Hasen roots the Court's intervention in political process cases to the landmark 1962 case, Baker v. Carr. The case opened the courts to a variety of election law disputes, to the point that the courts now control and direct major aspects of the American electoral process.

The Supreme Court does have a crucial role to play in protecting a socially constructed "core" of political equality principles, contends Hasen, but it should leave contested questions of political equality to the political process itself. Under this standard, many of the Court's most important election law cases from Baker to Bush have been wrongly decided.

View the Table of Contents.
Read the Foreword.

"This thoughtful book will appeal to readers across the political spectrum."
--"Harvard Law Review"

"An invaluable source . . . for anyone interested in navigating the judiciary's politics."
--"National Journal"

"The Myth of the Imperial Judiciary makes a formidable argument that conservatives indeed have an unrealistic conception of the Supreme Court."
--"Austin American Statesman"

"Kozlowski marshals history to show that not only was a strong and active judiciary intended by the Founding Fathers, but also that it has served the nation extremely well."
--"Chicago Sun-Times"

"Kozlowski effectively demonstrates that courts have far less power to operate as free agents than many believe."
--"Law and Politics Book Review"

"Kozlowski marshals history to show that not only was a strong and active judiciary intended by the Founding Fathers, it has served the nation extremely well. . . . A fine piece of scholarship."
--"Washington Post"

"How many minds his book will change on a subject so charged with emotion remainds dubious, but the points Mr. Kozlowski makes so expertly cannot in fairness be ignored."
--"New York Law Journal"

Few institutions have become as ferociously fought over in democratic politics as the courts. While political criticism of judges in this country goes back to its inception, today's intensely ideological assault is nearly unprecedented.

Spend any amount of time among the writings of contemporary right-wing critics of judicial power, and you are virtually assured of seeing repeated complaints about the "imperial judiciary." American conservatives contend not onlythat judicial power has expanded dangerously in recent decades, but that liberal judges now willfully write their policy preferences into law. They raise alarms that American courts possess a degree of power incompatible with the functioning of a democratic polity.

The Myth of the Imperial Judiciary explores the anti-judicial ideological trend of the American right, refuting these claims and taking a realistic look at the role of courts in our democracy to show that conservatives have a highly "unrealistic" conception of their power. Kozlowski first assesses the validity of the conservative view of the Founders' intent, arguing that courts have played an assertive role in our politics since their establishment. He then considers contemporary judicial powers to show that conservatives have greatly overstated the extent to which the expansion of rights which has occurred has worked solely to the benefit of liberals.

Kozlowski reveals the ways in which the claims of those on the right are often either unsupported or simply wrong. He concludes that American courts, far from imperiling our democracy or our moral fabric, stand as a bulwark against the abuse of legislative power, acting forcefully, as they have always done, to give meaning to constitutional promises.

This book explores how the lower federal court appointment process became vastly politicized in the modern era. Scherer develops a theory of "elite mobilization," positing that lower court appointments have always been used by politicians for electoral purposes, but because of two historic changes to American institutions in the 1950s and 1960s-the breakdown of the old party system, and a federal judiciary reception to expanding individuals' constitutional rights-politicians shifted from an appointment system dominated by patronage to a system dominated by new policy-oriented appointment strategies. The use of these new strategies not only resulted in partisan warfare during the nomination and confirmation stages of the appointment process, but also led to party-polarized voting in the lower federal courts. Employing exclusive data of judicial decision-making from the New Deal era through the present, Scherer demonstrates that there was little party-polarized voting in the lower federal courts until the late 1960s, and that once politicians began to use elite mobilization strategies, significant party-polarized voting in the lower federal courts resulted. Accordingly, elite mobilization strategies have affected not only politics in Washington, but also the way justice is distributed across the country.

The book surveys the enforcement of EU law through the lens of damages claims for violations of EU public procurement rules. The first part clarifies the requirements on damages claims under both public procurement and general EU law, notably the public procurement remedies directives and doctrines such as procedural autonomy, effective judicial protection and Member State liability. The second part focuses on comparative law, covering England, France, Germany and the Netherlands, and provides an overview of national regulation and case law of damages litigation in the area of public procurement. A third part discusses the constitutive and quantification criteria of the damages remedy from a comparative and EU law perspective. It explores the lost chance, which functionally emerges as a compromise capable of mitigating the typically problematic nature of causation and uncertainty in public procurement constellations. The book concludes with a proposal for legislative intervention regarding damages in public procurement.

This book focuses on the most important implications of the "fair hearing" right for conducting civil proceedings. It provides a thorough and critical analysis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (the Strasbourg Court) regarding Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights. It puts forward a generally applicable framework for the analysis of the various procedural issues to which the "fair hearing" right may give rise, then applies that framework to discuss a selection of specific procedural issues. The book investigates several important questions of general scope in the context of ECHR Article 6, such as: What is the relevance of case law regarding criminal proceedings when the "fair hearing" right is applied to civil proceedings? How does the Strasbourg Court actually proceed when evaluating whether specific court proceedings have been "fair"? What are the roles of fundamental concepts such as the "margin of appreciation" and proportionality in this regard? In the subsequent discussion of specific procedural issues, the focus is on the balance that must be struck between procedural safeguards and the objectives of efficiency and economy. The book considers specific procedural issues such as: When must an oral hearing be held in order for civil proceedings to be "fair"? When will a refusal of specific evidence render civil proceedings unfair? When is a civil litigant entitled to le gal aid? As such, the book not only presents current case law; it also compares various strands of the case law regarding the "fair hearing" right, and argues that the Strasbourg Court's approach to various pertinent issues needs to become more consistent. Offering an in-depth examination of the Strasbourg Court's case law regarding ECHR Article 6, this book should be consulted by anyone interested in fundamental fair trial rights.

John Hagedorn, who has long been an expert witness in gang-related court cases, claims that what transpires in the trials of gang members is a far cry from what we would consider justice. In Gangs on Trial, he recounts his decades of experience to show how stereotypes are used against gang members on trial and why that is harmful. Hagedorn uses real-life stories to explain how implicit bias often replaces evidence and how the demonization of gang members undermines fairness. Moreover, a "them and us" mentality leads to snap judgments that ignore the complexity of gang life in America. Gangs on Trial dispels myths about gangs and recommends tactics for lawyers, mitigation specialists, and expert witnesses as well as offering insights for jurors. Hagedorn describes how minds are subconsciously "primed" when a defendant is identified as a gang member, and discusses the "backfire effect," which occurs when jurors hear arguments that run counter to their beliefs. He also reveals how attributional errors, prejudice, and racism impact sentences of nonwhite defendants. Hagedorn argues that dehumanization is the psychological foundation of mass incarceration. Gangs on Trial advocates for practical sentencing reforms and humanizing justice.

The United States Supreme Court has numbered nine justices for the past 150 years. But that number is not fixed. With the Democrats controlling the House and Senate during the Biden presidency, they could add justices to the Supreme Court. But would court packing destroy the Court as an apolitical judicial institution? This is the crucial question Stephen Feldman addresses in his provocative book, Pack the Court! He uses a historical, analytical, and political argument to justify court-packing in general and Democratic court-packing more specifically. Republicans and Democrats alike profess to worry that court-packing will destroy the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a judicial institution by injecting politics into a purely legal adjudicative process. But as Feldman's insightful book shows, law and politics are forever connected in judicial interpretation and decision making. Pack the Court! insists that court packing is not the threat to the Supreme Court's institutional legitimacy that many fear. Given this, Feldman argues that Democrats should pack the Court while they have the opportunity. Doing so might even strengthen the American people's faith in the Court.

This book provides a systematic elaboration of Chinese Private International Law, reveals the general techniques concerning conflict of laws in China, explains the detailed Chinese conflict rules for different areas of law, and demonstrates how international civil litigation is pursued in China. Clearly structured and written by a native Chinese scholar specializing in the field, the book's easy-to-read style makes it accessible to a broad readership, while its content makes it a useful reference guide, especially for jurists and researchers.

This book provides a systematic elaboration of Chinese Private International Law, reveals the general techniques concerning conflict of laws in China, explains the detailed Chinese conflict rules for different areas of law, and demonstrates how international civil litigation is pursued in China. Clearly structured and written by a native Chinese scholar specializing in the field, the book's easy-to-read style makes it accessible to a broad readership, while its content makes it a useful reference guide, especially for jurists and researchers.