Volume 101, Issue 2

Summer 2017

 
... In This Edition ...
 
 

Features

 

Can Science Save Justice?

By Adam Benforado

Psychologists and neuroscientists say cognitive forces beyond our control are negatively affecting the criminial justice system and thwarting the promise of justice for all. Incremental efforts to address these damaging biases often come up short. Is it time for bold reform? Professor Benforado explores solutions offered by emerging science and technology, and practitioners — Sol Wachtler, a former appellate judge who served time in federal prison; Sam Myers, a former prosecutor who is now a trial judge; and defense attorneys David Keenan and Terence Ward — offer perspectives on how Benforado's proposals might, or might not, work in the real world.


Amended Rule 37(e): What's New and What's Next in Spoliation?

By Thomas Y. Allman

Rule 37(e) was amended to reflect new focus on curative measures in the absence of bad faith when it comes to the spoliation of electronic evidence. Thomas Allman assesses the impact of the rule and its releationship to using inherent sanctioning authority in addressing spoliation. (The article appendices, which can be downloaded below, will be updated periodically by the author to reflect new case law.)
 

Download the PDF 

 


Criticism of the Judiciary: The Virtue of Moderation

by Geert Corstens

Former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi once described the judicary as the "cancer of democracy." Belgian Underminister Theo Francken announced in public that he would disregard a judgment of the Belgian court. Former French President Nicolas Sarkozy qualified judges as "petits pois sans saveur," or "peas without flavor." Geert Corstens, former chief justice of the Dutch Supreme Court, argues that these types of criticisms are not only unwise, but that they undermine the stability of countries governed by the rule of law. But, he says, judges can and must act to counterbalance improper criticism and the related, and dangerous, problem of "tolerating the intolerants."
 
 

IP Law Post-Brexit

by Richard Arnold, Lionel Bently, Estelle Derclaye, and Graeme Dinwoodie

Four European IP experts assess the likely impact of Brexit on intellectual property rights in the UK and the EU — and what it all means for the United States.


Into the Thicket: What's Next in Election Litigation?

by Bradley A. Smith

With a contentious election just passed, it would seem courts might get a brief respite from election-related litigation. Not so. Over the past two decades, election-related litigation, once rare, has become a court staple. The breadth and importance that election law litigation has taken on is indicated by reciting just a few of the major U.S. Supreme Court Decisions in the field since Bush v. Gore was decided in 2000: McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (campaign finance); Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (voter ID laws); League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry (gerrymandering); and, of course, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (corporate election speech). And there is no reason to think that election-related litigation will decline. 

PERSPECTIVE

Cameras Belong in the Supreme Court

by Erwin Chemerinsky and Eric Segall

The United State Supreme Court is now and has been for over 200 years the most powerful and important legal tribunal in the world. Over the last ten years alone, critical decision regarding abortion, affirmative action, gun rights, Obamacare, campaign finance reform, voting rights, redistricting and numerous other fundamental issues concerning how the people of the United States govern and define themselves have been made by our highest Court. Yet it has never allowed a single oral argument or decision to be broadcast or live streamed. It is a national embarassment and a great disservice to the rule of law and a government by and for the people.

 
 

 

DEPARTMENTS

DOWNLOADS FROM THIS EDITION:

To subscribe to Judicature or to order a copy of Volume 101 Number 2 (or past editions), please visit our subscription page.

 

 

 

 

We provide limited content from each edition of Judicature in electronic format. To order a hard copy of the publication, please visit our subscription page.

 

Please send comments, questions, and letters to the editor to judicature@law.duke.edu.


EDITOR IN CHIEF
Frederic Blockx
Judge, Commercial Court, Belgium
 
BOARD OF EDITORS
Robert Brutinel
Justice, Arizona Supreme Court
 
Sarah A.L. Merriam
Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court
District of Connecticut
 
Tracie Todd
Judge, Circuit Court of Alabama
 

Published by the
Duke Law Center
for Judicial Studies 

DIRECTOR
John K. Rabiej
ACADEMIC DIRECTORS
Jack Knight
Frederic Cleaveland Professor of Law and Political Science, Duke University
 
Mitu Gulati
Professor of Law, Duke University
 
Margaret H. Lemos
Robert G. Seaks LLB'34 Professor of Law, Duke University
MANAGING EDITOR
Melinda Myers Vaughn
CENTER COORDINATOR
Ann M. Yandian
EDITORIAL ASSISTANTS
Leah Brenner, Lora Beth Farmer, Janse Haywood, Zachary Newkirk, Glenn Chappell, Matt Eible
 
CONTRIBUTORS
Thomas Allman
Richard Arnold
Adam Benforado
Lionel Bently
Erwin Chemerinsky
George Christie
Trevor Cook
Geert Corstens
Estelle Derclaye
Graeme Dinwoodie
Bernice Donald
Cynthia Gray
Meredith Hobbs
David Keenan
Joseph Kimble
Stan McCoy
Sam Myers
William Raftery
Glenn Harland Reynolds
Eric Segall
Bradley Smith
George Socha
Terence Ward
Sol Wachtler
 
JUDICATURE
VOLUME 101, NUMBER 2
ISSN 0022-5800
 
© 2017 Duke University School of Law.
All rights reserved. This publication, or any part thereof, may not be reproduced without written permission from Duke University. 
 

Requests for reprints may be sent to:

Duke Law Center for Judicial Studies
210 Science Drive  |  Box 90362
Durham, NC 27708-0362
Phone: 919-613-7073
Fax: 919-613-7158
 

Thank you to our sponsors!

Silver Sponsors

GARRETSON RESOLUTION GROUP
KOZYAK TROPIN & THROCKMORTON LLP
THE HUNTINGTON NATIONAL BANK

Silver Sponsors (Individual)

David Ichel, DAVID W. ICHEL DISPUTE RESOLUTION