Role of Judges and Jurists in Legal Research

This research is always broader, more sophisticated and sometimes revealing. It is undoubtedly valuable material for the lawyer, the law student and, of course, the judges. However, these researchers often work in disciplinary silos and their discoveries sometimes intersect like ships at night. As a result, judges and lawyers may not be as aware of this research and its value to it as they could be. The general conclusion of this work is hardly surprising, but can be overlooked: judges are, of course, human beings. They are social actors and, to varying degrees, political actors. Judges are extremely motivated to do things right, and they do it very often, but sometimes they make mistakes, perhaps in a way that they may not even be aware of. Other studies examine correlations between demographic and political characteristics and judicial outcomes. Women lawyers appearing before the High Court of Australia perform worse than lawyers, the effect being significantly limited by the presence of a female judge on the High Court panel. African American appellate judges are more likely to be overthrown by their white counterparts on appeal than white judges.

It is at least comforting to know that real litigants should not suffer from such experimental studies and that judges can learn from their experiences by participating. It should also be noted that on many occasions researchers do not present any results – the impartiality and objectivity of judges often prevail. The judicial system can open doors and sometimes even tear down walls. But it cannot build bridges. This work is yours and mine. The holding company – The holding company is the actual decision in a case. After reviewing the facts and legal reasoning, the judge applies the law to the facts and gives the outcome of the case. It is important to know what the holding company is so that you know if the case hurts you or helps you. The judge conducts the trial from a desk, called a bench, on a raised platform. The judge has five fundamental tasks.

The first is simply presiding over the proceedings and ensuring that law and order is maintained. The second is whether the evidence that the parties wish to use is illegal or inadmissible. Third, before the jury begins its deliberations on the facts of the case, the judge instructs the jury on the law that applies to the case and the standards it must apply in deciding the case. Fourth, in court proceedings, the judge must also establish the facts and decide the case. The fifth is to convict convicted defendants. Your law library may contain Corpus Juris Secundum, abbreviated « CJS ». CJS is a legal encyclopedia. It explains the law on each of the key topics and gives a list of quotes for each explanation. Be sure to check the pocket pieces on the back of each book to stay up to date. Prison law libraries should include books to help you with your legal research.

The most important books for legal research are Shepard`s quotations, which we described above. Other important books are described below. Some jurisdictions seem to be concerned about the consequences that new technologies can bring. In 2016, Michaël Benesty, a French tax lawyer and machine learning expert, published data on the decision-making trends of French asylum judges on his website. The data showed wide divergences in judges` decision-making on whether asylum seekers should be granted asylum in France. Some judges rejected asylum seekers` claims almost 100% of the time, while others, even colleagues from the same courts, had very low rejection rates. It was a conclusive investigation that did not present some asylum judges in a good light. The response of the French Parliament was decisive. Section 33 of the Judicial Reform Act criminalizes the assessment, analysis, comparison or prediction of the conduct of certain judges, the first such prohibition in the world. The maximum penalty for this offence is a special penalty of five years` imprisonment.

The law effectively prohibits the science of French justice as a whole, as individual judges and their decisions cannot be identified or analyzed. This is a regressive, overly broad and completely disproportionate measure that effectively portrays lawyers as potential criminals. Such sharing of academic control of the judiciary is unjustified and undermines the ideals of a transparent and better judicial system. There is a simple formula for writing clearly about legal issues that you can remember when you think of the abbreviation: RAIC. RAIC may refer to: Studies showing correlations between the characteristics of judges and litigants and case outcomes, while fascinating, cannot go that far. Of course, they are limited to analyzing certain dishes over a period of time, and in the real world, many other variables can play a role. Perhaps even more conclusive is a rich body of experimental research that has developed over the past 20 years, in which sitting judges courageously serve as legal guinea pigs in hypothetical mock trials. Here, researchers isolate and control for certain factors that they believe influence the decision-making of participating judges. They test for cognitive errors, emotions, motivated thinking, and implicit bias. With a forensic microscope examining their work, often as part of judicial training days, there is no hiding place for the judge who courageously puts his skills to the test.

About half of all judges are elected by the president, including Supreme Court judges and district judges. Everyone should ensure that everyone has a fair chance at justice, regardless of skin colour, background or bank account. Some of the results of this research are undoubtedly troubling. It seems logical that judges (both in practice and in training) should at least systematically come into contact with and become aware of this research and perhaps even participate in similar exercises as part of judicial training programmes. This may be particularly important in common law jurisdictions where successful litigators are usually appointed to the bench. Having made a career of fighting fiercely on one side in all the cases they have accepted, they must overnight transform into the blindfolded and uniformly balanced judge that Lady Justice envisages. The skills required to be a good lawyer and those required to be a good judge overlap to some extent, of course, but not completely. This line of research could be integrated into appointment procedures and integrated into initial legal training. When it comes to making decisions, newly appointed judges should know what factors influence decision-making beyond the law. Instead of stubbornly working on my own willingness to litigate, I defected to the observer role as a lawyer.

I immersed myself in remarkable research from different academic disciplines that explores the role of the judge and asks what, beyond the law, can make the difference between winning and losing.