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.

This is an ideal introductory book for the person who needs an insight into how the English legal system functions at all levels and a critical analysis of the shortcomings, with the views of major figures in the legal world on how to change the system so that it functions effectively.

This book explores some of the most glaring misunderstandings about the U.S. Supreme Court-and makes a strong case for why our Supreme Court Justices should not be entrusted with decisions that affect every American citizen. Supreme Myths: Why the Supreme Court is Not a Court and its Justices are Not Judges presents a detailed discussion of the Court's most important and controversial constitutional cases that demonstrates why it doesn't justify being labeled "a court of law." Eric Segall, professor of law at Georgia State University College of Law for two decades, explains why this third branch of the national government is an institution that makes important judgments about fundamental questions based on the Justices' ideological preferences, not the law. A complete understanding of the true nature of the Court's decision-making process is necessary, he argues, before an intelligent debate over who should serve on the Court-and how they should resolve cases-can be held. Addressing front-page areas of constitutional law such as health care, abortion, affirmative action, gun control, and freedom of religion, this book offers a frank description of how the Supreme Court truly operates, a critique of life tenure of its Justices, and a set of proposals aimed at making the Court function more transparently to further the goals of our representative democracy.

This title is part of UC Press's Voices Revived program, which commemorates University of California Press's mission to seek out and cultivate the brightest minds and give them voice, reach, and impact. Drawing on a backlist dating to 1893, Voices Revived makes high-quality, peer-reviewed scholarship accessible once again using print-on-demand technology. This title was originally published in 1951.

This two-volume set examines the origins and growth of judicial review in the key G-20 constitutional democracies, which include the United States, the United Kingdom, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, India, Canada, Australia, South Korea, Brazil, South Africa, Indonesia, Mexico, and the European Union, as well as Israel. The volumes consider five different theories, which help to explain the origins of judicial review, and identify which theories apply best in the various countries discussed. They consider not only what gives rise to judicial review originally, but also what causes of judicial review lead it to become more powerful and prominent over time. Volume Two discusses the G-20 civil law countries.

The Dispute resolution digest 2012 is the product of 7 years of continuous research by Tokiso into the labour dispute settlement system of South Africa. The intention of the Digest is to give a dispassionate account, based on statistical examination, of whether the dispute mechanisms of the Labour Relations Act are functioning effectively. The Digest considers types of labour disputes, settlements, trends in remedies and awards, and compliance with these awards. The disputes and awards are separated into their sub-categories of type, sector and forum with some interesting findings. Strikes, the most extreme form of labour action by employees, are analysed by the number of strikes, effects of strikes and the factors that trigger strikes.

An inside look at the struggles former prisoners face in reentering society Every year, roughly 650,000 people prepare to reenter society after being released from state and federal prisons. In Halfway House, Liam Martin shines a light on their difficult journeys, taking us behind the scenes at Bridge House, a residential reentry program near Boston, Massachusetts. Drawing on three years of research, Martin explores the obstacles these former prisoners face in the real world. From drug addiction to poverty, he captures the ups and downs of life after incarceration in vivid, engaging detail. He shows us what, exactly, it is like to live in a halfway house, giving us a rare, up-close view of its role in a dense and often confusing web of organizations governing prisoner reentry. Martin asks us to rethink the possibilities-and pitfalls-of using halfway houses to manage the worst excesses of mass incarceration. A portrait of life in the long shadow of the carceral state, Halfway House lets us see the struggles of reentry through the eyes of former prisoners.

Examines the outsized influence of jurors on prosecutorial discretion Thanks to television and popular media, the jury is deeply embedded in the American public's imagination of the legal system. For the country's federal prosecutors, however, jurors have become an increasingly rare sight. Today, in fact, less than 2% of their cases will proceed to an actual jury trial. And yet, when federal prosecutors describe their jobs and what the profession means to them, the jury is a central theme. Anna Offit's The Imagined Juror examines the counterintuitive importance of jurors in federal prosecutors' work at a moment when jury trials are statistically in decline. Drawing on extensive field research among federal prosecutors, the book represents "the first ethnographic study of US attorneys," according to legal scholar Annelise Riles. It describes a world of legal practice in which jurors are frequently summoned-as make-believe audiences for proposed arguments, hypothetical evaluators of evidence, and invented decision-makers who would work together to reach a verdict. Even the question of moving forward with a prosecution often hinges on how federal prosecutors assume a jury will react to elements of the case-an exercise where the perspectives of the public are imagined and incorporated into every stage of trial preparation. Based on these findings, Offit argues that the decreasing number of jury trials at the federal level has not eliminated the influence of the jury but altered it. As imaginary figures, jurors continue to play an important and understudied role in shaping the work and professional identities of federal prosecutors. At the same time, imaginary jurors are not real jurors, and prosecutors at times caricature the public by leaning on stereotypes or preconceived and simplistic ideas about how laypeople think. Imagined jurors, it turns out, are a critical, if flawed, resource for introducing lay perspective into the legal process. As Offit shows, recentering laypeople and achieving the democratic promise of our legal system will require renewed commitment to the jury trial and juries that reflect the diversity of the American public.

This timely volume brings together leading scholars and rising researchers in the field to examine the role played by the law in thinking and practice in the legal system of classical Athens. The aim is not to find a single perspective or method for the study of Athenian law but to explore the subject from a variety of different angles. The focus of the collection on 'use and abuse' raises fundamental questions about the status of law in the Athenian constitution as well as the use of law(s) in the courts, the nature of law itself, and the elusiveness of a definition of 'abuse'. An introduction sketches the major developments in the field over the last century.

The Law & Practice Of Interdicts is the successor to Interlocutory Interdicts (1993) by the same author. This publication serves as a comprehensive resource book on interdicts and consists of two parts.

Part A, “The Requirements of the Law of Interdict”, is an updated and expanded version of Interlocutory Interdicts. It deals with the nature, history and development of interdictal applications in South Africa, including a useful comparison of the English and South African law on the subject.

Part B, “Practice” consists of eight chapters dealing with the procedure; the court’s discretion; urgency; jurisdiction; locus standi; the discharge, referral and variation of interdictory orders; appeals and costs.

Treat yourself to Second Helpings and more choice cuts in the style of Simon Brown's much lauded first volume of memoirs, Playing off the Roof & Other Stories. Exuberantly revisiting his early years in National Service, at Oxford and as a young barrister, Lord Brown recalls matters grave and trivial from his time at the Bar and on the Bench, along the way regaling us with tales of Paddington Bear, Nigel Lawson and Mozart at the Warsaw opera. He also has something to say about the current legal scene and considers such thorny problems as the 2019 prorogation judgment and whether trial by jury might be dispensed with in order to clear a mounting backlog of criminal cases. Drawing witty lessons from a life of trials, Lord Brown finds time to muse on when a judge might choose to change a sentence already imposed, what to say after dinner and why the game of golf is strictly for the birds!

Legal precedents created during Prohibition have lingered, leaving search-and-seizure law much better defined than limits on police use of force, interrogation practices, or eyewitness identification protocols. An unlawful trunk search is thus guarded against more thoroughly than an unnecessary shooting or a wrongful conviction. Intrusive searches for alcohol during Prohibition destroyed middle-class Americans' faith in police and ushered in a new basis for controlling police conduct. State courts in the 1920s began to exclude perfectly reliable evidence obtained in an illegal search. Then, as Prohibition drew to a close, a presidential commission awakened the public to torture in interrogation rooms, prompting courts to exclude coerced confessions irrespective of whether the technique had produced a reliable statement. Prohibition's scheme lingered long past the Roaring '20s. Racial tensions and police brutality were bigger concerns in the 1960s than illegal searches, yet when the Supreme Court imposed limits on officers' conduct in 1961, searches alone were regulated. Interrogation law during the 1960s, fundamentally reshaped by the Miranda ruling, ensured that suspects who invoked their rights would not be subject to coercive tactics, but did nothing to ensure reliable confessions by those who were questioned. Explicitly recognizing that its decisions excluding evidence had not been well-received, the Court in the 1970s refused to exclude identifications merely because they were made in suggestive lineups. Perhaps a larger project awaits-refocusing our rules of criminal procedure on those concerns from which Prohibition distracted us: conviction accuracy and the use of force by police.

A lively narrative account of the first case to appear at the International Criminal Court, A Conviction in Question documents the trial of Union of Congolese Patriots leader and warlord, Thomas Lubanga Dyilo. Although Dyilo's crimes, including murder, rape, and the forcible conscription of child soldiers, were indisputable, legal wrangling and a clash of personalities caused the trial to be prolonged for an unprecedented six years. This book offers an accessible account of the rapid evolution of international law and the controversial trial at the foundation of the International Criminal Court. The first book to thoroughly examine Dyilo's trial, A Conviction in Question looks at the legal issues behind each of the trial's critical moments, including the participation of Dyilo's victims at the trial and the impact of witness protection. Through eye-witness observation and analysis, Jim Freedman shows that the trial suffered from all the problems associated with ordinary criminal law trials, and uses Dyilo's case to further comment on the role of international courts in a contemporary global context.

This book offers a new interpretation of judicial review in England and Wales as being concerned with the advancement of justice and good governance, as opposed to being concerned primarily with ultra vires or common law constitutionalism. It is developed both from examining the functions and values that ought to be served by judicial review, and from analysis of empirical 'social' facts about judicial review primarily as experienced in the Administrative Court. Based on ground-up case law analysis it constructs a new taxonomy on the grounds of judicial review: mistake, procedural impropriety, ordinary common law statutory interpretation, discretionary impropriety, relevant/irrelevant considerations, breach of an ECHR protected right or equality duty, and constitutional allocation of powers, constitutional rights, or other complex constitutional principles. It explains each of these grounds, what academic and judicial support there might be for them outside case law analysis, and their similarities and differences when viewed against popular existing taxonomies. It concludes that Administrative Court judges are engaged in ordinary common law statutory interpretation in approximately half of all cases, and that where discretionary judgement is involved on the part of the initial decision-maker, judges do indeed consider their task to be one of determining whether the challenged decision was justified by reasoning of adequate quality. It finds that judges apply ordinary common law principles of statutory interpretation with historical pedigrees, including assessing the initial decision-maker's reasoning with reference to statutory purpose, and sifting relevant from irrelevant considerations, including moral considerations. The result is a ground-breaking reassessment of the grounds of judicial review in England and Wales and the practice of the Administrative Court.

Criminal proceedings, it is often now said, ought to be conducted with integrity. But what, exactly, does it mean for criminal process to have, or to lack, 'integrity'? Is integrity in this sense merely an aspirational normative ideal, with possibly diffuse influence on conceptions of professional responsibility? Or is it also a juridical concept with robust institutional purchase and enforceable practical consequences in criminal litigation? The 16 new essays contained in this collection, written by prominent legal scholars and criminologists from Australia, Hong Kong, the UK and the USA, engage systematically with - and seek to generate further debate about - the theoretical and practical significance of 'integrity' at all stages of the criminal process. Reflecting the flexibility and scope of a putative 'integrity principle', the essays range widely over many of the most hotly contested issues in contemporary criminal justice theory, policy and practice, including: the ethics of police investigations, charging practice and discretionary enforcement; prosecutorial independence, policy and operational decision-making; plea bargaining; the perils of witness coaching and accomplice testimony; expert evidence; doctrines of admissibility and abuse of process; lay participation in criminal adjudication; the role of remorse in criminal trials; the ethics of appellate judgment writing; innocence projects; and state compensation for miscarriages of justice.

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.