On December 24, 1968, ten-year-old Pamela Powers was brutally murdered, her body dumped at the side of the road to freeze. Robert Anthony Williams was charged with the crime, and a series of trials, appeals, and reversals ensued. The Christian Burial Case: An Introduction to Criminal and Judicial Procedure introduces readers to the intricacies of the American legal system, using the Williams case to illustrate all the stages of the legal process from the point of arrest, to the trial, the appellate process, and, ultimately, the Supreme Court. The text clearly and concisely explains criminal and court procedures in the context of the Williams case, paying careful attention to the rights against self-incrimination and to counsel, and to the role of the exclusionary rule in our system of justice. This unique introduction to criminal justice and judicial procedure captures the imagination of the reader as it chronicles "The Christian Burial" case from beginning to end. Because the suspect was observed leaving the scene of the crime with the body of the victim, the Williams case seemed to be open and shut. But due to police procedures in apprehending and questioning the suspect, the resolution of the case took fifteen years and two United States Supreme Court decisions. By highlighting the difficulties of determining the facts of the case and the proper procedural laws that were applicable, McInnis demonstrates the complexities inherent in the legal system. This compelling book is a must-read for all people interested in learning more about criminal procedure and judicial processes.

Like many books, this one argues for a more restrained Supreme Court. Unlike most other books, however, this one grounds that call in a fully elaborated constitutional theory that goes beyond the "counter-majoritarian difficulty."

Is judicial review constitutionally required or even authorized? Can it be said whether the federal courts exercise this power with the consent of the electorate? Sosin addresses these challenging questions in the broad context of the Anglo-American historical experience. He examines the evolution of courts of judicature and legislatures and the contests for power that were waged from the seventeenth to eighteenth century. The origins of the English court system and the establishment of common law are first described. The author traces the rise in judicial and parliamentary power that occurred with the erosion of the royal prerogative and discusses the constitutional and legal heritage that provided the framework for law, courts, and legislatures in colonial America. Following an examination of political, legislative, and legal development during the colonial period, Sosin looks at the philosophical and ideological controversies that influenced the framing of the Constitution, particulary the conflicting views of the proper relationship between the legislature and judiciary. Despite the emphatic opposition voiced by some framers to giving judges the power to overturn legislative action by ruling on the constitutionality of federal laws, the Supreme Court was able to declare itself the final arbiter and ultimate interpreter of the Constitution as early as the first decade of the nineteenth century. The author's analysis indicates that the Court's assumption of the power of judicial review was neither inevitable politically nor the logical result of the founders desire to limit government and protect the rights of individuals against interferences by public authority. Echoing early English and American political figures, Sosin asks whether this expanded, arbitrary judicial power can be considered appropriate in a representative democracy. The product of meticulous research and careful historical analysis, this provocative study will be relevant reading for a variety of courses in American government, political science, and history.

Every year, millions of people across Europe - innocent and guilty - are arrested and detained by the police. For some, their cases go no further than the police station, but many others eventually appear before a court. Many will spend time in custody both before and following trial. Initial attempts by the European Union to establish minimum procedural rights for suspects and defendants failed in 2007, in the face of opposition by a number of Member States who argued that the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) rendered EU regulation unnecessary. However, with ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, criminal defense rights are again on the agenda. Based on a three year research study, this book explores and compares access to effective defense in criminal proceedings across nine European jurisdictions (Belgium, England/Wales, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Poland, and Turkey) that constitute examples of the three major legal traditions in Europe: inquisitorial, adversarial, and post-state socialist. Part I sets out the research methodology and analysis of the baseline requirements that, according to ECHR case law, have an impact on the rights of the accused. In addition to the general fair trial rights (the presumption of innocence, the right to silence, equality of arms, and the (conditional) right to release pending trial) the rights explored include: the right to information, the right to legal assistance and legal aid, and a number of procedural rights (the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defense, participation rights, the right to free interpretation and translation, and the right to reasoned decisions and to appeal). Part II consists of a description and critical analysis of access to effective criminal defense in the nine countries examined. Part III includes a cross-jurisdictional analysis of compliance, in law and in practice, with the ECHR requirements. It also contains an analysis of how they interrelate, and of whether structures, systems, and legal cultures exist to enable individuals to effectively exercise these rights. This book contributes to implementation of the rights of suspects and defendants to a real and effective defense, especially for those who lack the means to pay for legal assistance themselves. The recommendations are designed to contribute to the development of meaningful policies and processes that will help to ensure effective criminal defense across the EU. The book is essential reading for academics, researchers, students, defense lawyers, and policy-makers in the area of criminal justice in Europe.

Cultural Difference on Trial: The Nature and Limits of Judicial Understanding comprises a sustained philosophical exploration of the capacity of the modern liberal democratic legal system to understand the thought and practice of those culturally different minorities who come before it as claimants, defendants or witnesses. Exploring this issue from within the tradition of contemporary analytical and naturalistic philosophy and drawing upon recent developments in the philosophy of mind and language, this volume is informed by a sound academic and practical grasp of the workings of the legal system itself. Systematically analysing the nature and limits of a judge's ability to understand culturally different thought and action over the course of a trial, this volume is essential reading for anyone interested in the workings of the modern legal system.

In this book, 78 leading attorneys in California and New York describe how they evaluate, negotiate and resolve litigation cases. Selected for their demonstrated skill in predicting trial outcomes and knowing when cases should be settled or taken to trial, these attorneys identify the key factors in case evaluation and share successful strategies in pre-trial discovery, negotiation, mediation, and trials. Integrating law and psychology, the book shows how skilled attorneys mentally frame cases, understand jurors' perspectives, develop persuasive themes and arguments and achieve exceptional results for clients.

Courts are constantly required to know how people think. They may have to decide what a specific person was thinking on a past occasion; how others would have reacted to a particular situation; or whether a witness is telling the truth. Be they judges, jurors or magistrates, the law demands they penetrate human consciousness. This book questions whether the arm-chair psychology' operated by fact-finders, and indeed the law itself, in its treatment of the fact-finders, bears any resemblance to the knowledge derived from psychological research. Comparing psychological theory with court verdicts in both civil and criminal contexts, it assesses where the separation between law and science is most acute, and most dangerous.

The Contract is the core tool of governance in a free market economy. An EU Contract Law Code is now on the political agenda because all three legislative bodies in the EU and most member states favour it in principle. In its communication of July 2001, the Commission proposed three major options: to enhance the existing EC Contract Law by eliminating inconsistencies; introducing a European Code which substitutes national laws; and introducing a European code which only supplements national laws. This book achieves three things: For the first time, European academia is discussing these three options in an extensive and systematic way - with pros and cons, in a transparent and systematic way, along broad lines and often also important details. The book contains the views of all protagonists - from all those who really drafted the models to all those who illustrated the potential of decentralized rule-making and invented the very idea of an Optional Code. And it is the first book in which the optional Code, which is the alternative most likely to come, is thoroughly analysed at all. The book also contains a full map of design possibilities. It is the executive summary of what European academia thinks of the future of European Contract Law and a European Code. It is the Academic Green Paper on European Contract Law.

African-American Males and the US Justice System of Marginalization provides an overview of the economic and social status of African-American males in America, which continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate. Weatherspoon posits that in every American institutional system, from birth to death, the journey of African-American males to achieve racial justice and equity in this country is ignored, marginalized, and exploited. The American justice system, in particular, has permitted and in some cases sanctioned the marginalization of African-American males as full citizens. Weatherspoon examines the idea that African-American males are disproportionately represented in every aspect of the criminal justice system, and that the marginalization of African-American males in America has a long and treacherous history that continues to negatively impact their economic, political, and social status.

It has been many years since O. J. Simpson walked free from a downtown Los Angeles courtroom. For many, it was the demolition of the fundamental principle of right and wrong, and many debated the deficiencies of the American justice system. Since then, we have witnessed the Casey Anthony case, and others, that remind us of issues unaddressed and questions unanswered. In Fixing the Engine of Justice, author David Tunno presents the symptoms of a defective jury system and offers comprehensive, intelligent, and thought-provoking solutions. Tunno, a trial consultant for more than twenty years, has studied and researched key trials and has gleaned stories from his personal experiences to show a system beset with representation issues, incompetence, bias, misconduct, and lack of support and public perception based on misconceptions. He analyzes the flaws in the jury selection process, its lack of effectiveness, and the ways in which it contributes to the delivery of justice. Often humorous and irreverent, Fixing the Engine of Justice offers a diagnosis of the problems and a list of needed repairs to the American legal system. With the prime focus on juries, Tunno also takes aim at judges, attorneys, and other issues relevant to the health of the system.

The public image of judges has been stuck in a time warp; they are invariably depicted in the media - and derided in public bars up and down the country - as 'privately educated Oxbridge types', usually 'out-of-touch', and more often than not as 'old men'. These and other stereotypes - the judge as a pervert, the judge as a right-wing monster - have dogged the judiciary long since any of them ceased to have any basis in fact. Indeed the limited research that was permitted in the 1960s and 1970s tended to reinforce several of these stereotypes. Moreover, occasional high profile incidents in the courts, elaborated with the help of satirists such as 'Private Eye' and 'Monty Python', have ensured that the 'old white Tory judge' caricature not only survives but has come to be viewed as incontestable. Since the late 1980s the judiciary has changed, largely as a result of the introduction of training and new and more transparent methods of recruitment and appointment. But how much has it changed, and what are the courts like after decades of judicial reform? Given unprecedented access to the whole range of courts - from magistrates' courts to the Supreme Court - Penny Darbyshire spent seven years researching the judges, accompanying them in their daily work, listening to their conversations, observing their handling of cases and the people who come before them, and asking them frank and searching questions about their lives, careers and ambitions. What emerges is without doubt the most revealing and compelling picture of the modern judiciary in England and Wales ever seen. From it we learn that not only do the old stereotypes not hold, but that modern 'baby boomer' judges are more representative of the people they serve and that the reforms are working. But this new book also gives an unvarnished glimpse of the modern courtroom which shows a legal system under stress, lacking resources but facing an ever-increasing caseload. This book will be essential reading for anyone wishing to know about the experience of modern judging, the education, training and professional lives of judges, and the current state of the courts and judiciary in England and Wales.

Dominance is an integral aspect of strategy. Strategy, whether in war, sports or business, is about how one can place themselves in a competitive position that gives them an advantage over competitors. If that position can be made so overwhelming by one competitor that others are effectively taken out of effective competition, that competitor is dominant. Dominance wins. The game is over. Everyone else is playing for second place or lower. Creating Dominance describes how successful law firms have gone about dominating their marketplaces - be they a practice area, a city or an industry. The book begins by describing the characteristics that identify a dominant firm and the precise strategies law firms can use to put themselves in a position of dominance.

This title poses a challenge to the consensus on the best way to reform legal systems in order to attract and support foreign direct investment (FDI) in developing countries. Using detailed examples from Sri Lanka, it shows that the "ideal paradigm" approach to legal reform espoused by multilateral development organizations and bilateral aid donors is not only fundamentally flawed, but misconceived for reasons that we may not fully understand. The author recommends a shift in emphasis from the "global" legal reform agenda to a country-specific approach, based on a rigorous formulation of the common ground where the expectations of investors and the countries in question meet. The crux of this "ideal paradigm" approach resides in the generally accepted belief that a Western-style market-oriented, rule-bound legal system is the sine qua non of successfully attracting and supporting FDI. However, through a wide-ranging survey of Sri Lankan and foreign business people, lawyers, non-legal advisers, NGO workers, diplomats, development workers, and government officials, Perry shows that this is far from the case. Investors are generally insensitive to the nature of the host state legal system when making the decision to invest, and their perceptions and expectations of the host state legal system may be significantly affected by such factors as their nationality, export orientation and size. Perry suggests that the conclusions drawn from this detailed analysis from Sri Lanka, applied on a global scale, have the potential to greatly improve the quality of many developing countries' participation in the world economy. The positive and forward-looking thesis of this book will be of great value to policymakers in international organisations and donor government agencies, to law firms handling international business transactions, and to academics in development and other areas of international finance, as well as to investors everywhere.

The European Court of Justice is widely acknowledged to have played a fundamental role in developing the constitutional law of the EU, having been the first to establish such key doctrines as direct effect, supremacy and parallelism in external relations. Traditionally, EU scholarship has praised the role of the ECJ, with more critical perspectives being given little voice in mainstream EU studies. From the standpoint of legal reasoning, Gerard Conway offers the first sustained critical assessment of how the ECJ engages in its function and offers a new argument as to how it should engage in legal reasoning. He also explains how different approaches to legal reasoning can fundamentally change the outcome of case law and how the constitutional values of the EU justify a different approach to the dominant method of the ECJ.

"Must reading for anyone who seeks a better understanding of the U.S. Supreme Court's role in race relations policy."
--"Choice"

"Beware Those committed to the Supreme Court as the ultimate defender of minority rights should not read Race Against the Court. Through a systematic peeling away of antimajoritarian myth, Spann reveals why the measure of relief the Court grants victims of racial injustice is determined less by the character of harm suffered by blacks than the degree of disadvantage the relief sought will impose on whites. A truly pathbreaking work."
--Derrick Bell

As persuasive as it is bold. Race Against The Court stands as a necessary warning to a generation of progressives who have come to depend on the Supreme Court of the perils of such dependency. It joins with Bruce Ackerman's We, the People and John Brigham's Cult of the Court as the best in contemporary work on the Supreme Court.
--Austin Sarat, William Nelson, Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science, Amherst College

The controversies surrounding the nominations, confirmations, and rejections of recent Supreme Court justices, and the increasingly conservative nature of the Court, have focused attention on the Supreme Court as never before. Although the Supreme Court is commonly understood to be the guardian of minority rights against the tyranny of the majority, Race Against The Court argues that the Court has never successfully performed this function. Rather the actual function of the Court has been to perpetuate the subordination of racial minorities by operating as an undetected agent of majoritarian preferences in the political preferences. In this provocative, controversial, and timely work, Girardeau Spann illustrates how the selection process for Supreme Court justices ensures that they will share the political preferences of the elite majority that runs the nation. Customary safeguards that are designed to protect the judicial process from majoritarian predispositions, Spann contends, cannot successfully insulate judicial decisionmaking from the pervasive societal pressures that exist to discount racial minority interests.

The case most often cited as the icon of Court sensitivity to minority rights, Brown v. Board of Education, has more recently served to lull minorities into believing that efforts at political self-determination are futile, fostering a seductive dependence and overreliance on the Court as the caretaker of minority rights. Race Against The Court demonstrates how the Court has centralized the law of affirmative action in a way that stymies minority efforts for meaningful political and economic gain and how it has legitimated the legal status quo in a way that causes minorities never even to question the inevitability of their subordinate social status.

Spann contends that racial minorities would be better off seeking to advance their interests in the pluralist political process and proposes a novel strategy for minorities to pursue in order to extricate themselves from the seemingly inescapable grasp of Supreme Court protection. Certain to generate lively, heated debate, "Race Against The Court" exposes the veiled majoritarianism of the Supreme Court and the dangers of allowing the Court to formulate our national racial policy.

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.

In his Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy (Oxford 2004), the American-French scholar Mitchel Lasser has, among other things, tried to re-establish the strengths of the French cassation system. Using Lasser's approach and ideas as a starting point, in this book judges from the French, Belgian and Dutch Cassation Courts reflect on the challenges that their Courts are facing. The book also contains a series of contributions from scholars analyzing the wide range of factors that determine the legitimacy of these courts' decisions. Specific attention is given to the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights that has been so important for the moral legitimacy of the European legal order, and to courts in post-communist systems, which face many similar challenges and are even under greater pressure to modernize. The book is a multidisciplinary contribution to the international debate about the legitimacy of the highest courts' rulings as well as the concept of judicial leadership and offers a new perspective in the USA versus Europe debate. It is recommended reading for academics, judges, policymakers, political scientists and students. Nick Huls is a Professor of socio-legal studies at the Faculty of Law of the Erasmus University Rotterdam and Leiden University's Faculty of Law, The Netherlands. Maurice Adams is a Professor of law at Tilburg University, The Netherlands, and part-time Professor of comparative law at Antwerp University in Belgium. JaccoBomhoff is a Lecturer in law at the Law Department of the London School of Economics in the UK.

"A must read and a breakthrough work ... The book makes clear the importance of comparing, learning from, and adapting legal systems to the ever-changing world, while maintaining the integrity of the Constitution. The subtlety of the book shows deep understanding of these legal regimes, something most legal analysts and policy makers from both systems sorely lack ... a most timely and valuable analysis."- Prof. Christopher L. Blakesley, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, and author of Terrorism and Anti-Terrorism: A Normative and Practical Assessment "A careful and authoritative account of the controversial practice of investigative detention as a tool for responding to terrorism in a post-September 11th world. Informed by an impressive knowledge of American, British, and French law, Stigall's book reflects a distinctive comparative perspective. It deserves to be read not only by scholars and students in the field but also by policy makers on both sides of the Atlantic." - Prof. Stuart P. Green, Rutgers School of Law-Newark "Dan Stigall's analysis highlights the danger of dismissing a comparative approach, for he has most effectively used the British and French experience in discussing detention. While no regime has the answer (an illusion, at best), democratic nations can well learn from each other's successes and failures. Precisely for that reason, policy makers, jurists, and the concerned public owe Dan a collective thanks; in addressing the extraordinarily complicated issue of detention from a comparative perspective, he has truly bitten off a very large bite of a problematic apple. That he has done so is to our benefit; that he has done so successfully is to his credit. While we shall continue to struggle with the limits of detention and what legal paradigm is the "correct" one, we are the richer for Dan's book. It can serve as an effective "guide" as we continue to traverse the never-ending field of terrorism and counterterrorism." - Amos N. Guiora, Professor of Law, S. J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah

This volume addresses the role of the judge and the parties in civil litigation in mainland China, Hong Kong and various European jurisdictions. It provides an overview and an analysis of how these respective roles have been changed in order to cope with growing caseloads and quality demands. It also shows the different approaches chosen in the jurisdictions covered.

Mainland China is introducing far-reaching reforms in its system of civil litigation. From an inquisitorial procedure, in which the parties play a relatively minor role, the country is changing to a more adversarial system with increased powers for the parties. At the same time, case management and the role of the judge as it is understood in mainland China remains different from case management and the role of the judge in Western countries, mainly as regards the limited powers of individual Chinese judges in this respect. Changes in China are justified by the ever-increasing case load of the Chinese courts and the consequent inability to deal with cases in an adequate manner, even though generally speaking Chinese courts still adjudicate civil cases within a relatively short time frame (this may, however, be problematic when viewed from the perspective of the quality of adjudication).

Growing caseloads and quality concerns may also be observed in various European states and Hong Kong. In these jurisdictions the civil procedural systems have a relatively adversarial character and it is some of the adversarial features of the existing systems of procedure which are felt to be problematic. Therefore, the lawmakers have opted for increasing the powers of the judge, often making the judge and the parties mutually responsible for the proper conduct of civil cases.

Starting from opposite directions, mainland China and the various European states and Hong Kong could meet half way in their reform attempts. This is, however, only possible if a proper understanding is fostered of the developments in these different parts of the World. Even though in both China and Europe the academic community and lawmakers are showing a keen interest in the relevant developments abroad, a study addressing the role of the judge and the parties in civil litigation in both China and Europe is still missing. This book aims to fill this gap in the existing literature.

This study proposes a multilateralist method of choice of law in order to alleviate the great disarray that currently exists in American choice law. In the early 20th century, there was a fairly-uniform multilateralist method of choice law. In the 1920s and 30s, however, scholars adn courts began to reject this method. Viewed as too mechanical the method sometimes resulted in the choice of law of a state with only a tenuous connection to the controversy. Currently, state courts use four different approached to choice law with numerous material variations. This study rejects these approaches on normative, constitutional, and practical grounds. Instead, it advocates that courts adopt a multilateralist approach to choice of law that is forum- and content-neutral and that respects the rights of both individuals and states. The study also argues that such an approach should satisfy a constitutional standard that requires a court not choose one state's law when another state has a significantly closer connection to controversy.

The proposed method consists of two parts. The first part determines the states that have created legal relations applying to the dispute. When more than one state has created a legal realtions applying to the dispute. When more than one state has created a legal relation that applies to the controversy, the second part adopts the law of the state that had the closest connection. The study then applies the suggested method to numerous choice of law problems.