Therapeutic Courts in the Alaska Court System

Therapeutic courts — often called “problem-solving courts” or “wellness courts” — have been a growing component of the U.S. court system since the 1990s. This article provides an overview of the development of Alaska Court System therapeutic courts, and describes the 12 therapeutic courts currently operating in Alaska as well as proposed pilot project courts. Includes a bibliography.[Introduction] / The Rise and Expansion of Therapeutic Courts / Effectiveness of Problem-Solving Courts / Alaska Court System Therapeutic Courts / Behavioral Health Data and Court Case Filings / Conclusion / Resource

Global Problems in Domestic Courts

We face an increasing number of problems that are essentially global in nature because they affect the world in its entirety: global cartels, climate change, crimes against humanity; to name a few. These problems require world courts, yet world courts in the institutional sense are largely lacking. Hence, domestic courts must function, effectively, as world courts. Given the unlikelihood of effective world courts in the future, our challenge is to establish under what conditions domestic courts can play this role of world courts effectively and legitimately

Mass Justice: The Limited and Unlimited Power of Courts

The role of courts in mass tort litigation is examined. The courts\u27 interests in such cases, the power that courts have to aggregate claims, limits on that power and the flexibility that courts have to get around limits are discussed. Ways that courts\u27 interests in resolving mass tort litigation interfere with judicial promulgation and consistent application of legal rules are also discussed

coordination through judicial dialogue

International courts regularly cite each other, in part as a means of building legitimacy. Such international, cross-court use of precedent (or “judicial dialogue”) among the regional human rights courts and the Human Rights Committee has an additional purpose and effect: the construction of a rights-based global constitutionalism. Judicial dialogue among the human rights courts is purposeful in that the courts see themselves as embedded in, and contributing to, a global human rights legal system. Cross-citation among the human rights courts advances the construction of rights-based global constitutionalism in that it provides a basic degree of coordination among the regional courts. The jurisprudence of the U.N. Human Rights Committee (HRC), as an authoritative interpreter of core international human rights norms, plays the role of a central focal point for the decentralized coordination of jurisprudence. The network of regional courts and the HRC is building an emergent institutional structure for global rights-based constitutionalism

A National Portrait of Domestic Violence Courts

A growing number of criminal courts nationwide handle domestic violence cases on separate calendars, termed domestic violence courts. There are now 208 confirmed domestic violence courts across the U.S. (Center for Court Innovation 2009). More than 150 similar projects have been established internationally. Some domestic violence courts emerged in the context of the broader "problem-solving court" movement and share characteristics with other specialized courts, such as separate dockets and specially trained judges. However, the origins of domestic violence courts are also distinct, growing out of the increased attention afforded domestic violence matters by the justice system over the past 30 years. With funding from the National Institute of Justice, this study explores how criminal domestic violence courts have evolved, their rationale, and how their operations vary across the U.S. This study does not test whether domestic violence courts reduce recidivism, protect victims, or achieve other specific effects -- although we provide a thorough literature review on these points. Rather, our aim is to present a comprehensive national portrait of the field as it exists today, laying the groundwork for future information exchange and research

Courts and Executives

William Howard Taft was both our twenty-seventh president and the tenth Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court -- the only person to have ever held both high positions in our country. He once famously commented that presidents may come and go, but the Supreme Court goes on forever (Pringle 1998). His remark reminds us that presidents serve only four-year terms (and are now limited to two of them), but justices of the Supreme court are appointed for life and leave a legacy of precedent-setting cases after departing the High Court. Of course, presidents also leave a legacy of important decisions, not the least of which being their appointment of federal judges. [excerpt

Empiricism and the Misdemeanor Courts: Promoting Wider, Deeper, and Interdisciplinary Study

Since 1956, there have been three waves of scholarly attention on the misdemeanor courts. Despite this attention, misdemeanor courts remain understudied and overlooked. The object of this paper is to summarize the empirical research conducted over the last sixty years and identify the scholarly work that should be undertaken on the processing of misdemeanor offenders in our courts. Buoyed by the current interest in studying the misdemeanor courts, scholars should widen and deepen their study by replicating the work of others in a variety of jurisdictions, observing court proceedings, interviewing defendants and the courtroom workgroup, and assessing whether constitutional ideals are being upheld by our misdemeanor courts

Actual Innocence in New York: The Curious Case of \u3cem\u3ePeople v. Hamilton\u3c/em\u3e

It is rare for a case from the New York Appellate Division to be as significant as People v. Hamilton. The case, however, was the first New York appellate court decision to hold that a defendant might vacate his conviction if he could demonstrate that he was “actually innocent” of the crime of which he was charged. Although the precedential force of the decision is limited to the Second Department, trial courts throughout the state are required to follow Hamilton unless or until the appellate court in their own Department rules on the issue. Courts throughout the state are thus entertaining numerous “actual innocence” motions inspired by Hamilton. While courts in some other states, including state appellate courts, have recognized actual innocence claims, whether such claims should be recognized, and if so under what circumstances, is a very live issue in the federal courts and numerous state courts throughout the country. Examination of Hamilton, therefore, provides a useful way to consider issues that are of surpassing importance in criminal law and that will likely reoccur in cases throughout the country. As Hamilton goes further than many other courts have in considering the implications of actual innocence claims, consideration of Hamilton may be of considerable value to courts that consider actual innocence claims. Hamilton is a trailblazer, and its trail will repay careful study

The Resurgence of Tribal Courts: A Tribal Judge's Perspective

A full transcript is included with this record, and includes case citations. Transcript prepared by Melissa S. Green, Justice Center, University of Alaska Anchorage.Judge David Voluck is an attorney in Sitka, Alaska, and in 2008 was appointed chief judge of the Sitka Tribal Court. He also serves as magistrate judge for the Central Council of the Tlingit and Haida Indian Tribes and is presiding judge pro tem for the Aleut Community of St. Paul Island tribal government. He is introduced here by Dr. Ryan Fortson of the UAA Justice Center. In this podcast Judge Voluck presents a context for tribal courts and Native law, outlines the development of Indian law in the United States, and discusses tribal sovereignty and the role of tribal courts in Alaska. This presentation was recorded on Monday, November 18th, 2013 at the University of Alaska Anchorage/Alaska Pacific University Consortium Library on the UAA campus.Welcome and Introduction / MAIN PRESENTATION / Why is any of this important? / Divine Rights / Foundations of United States Indian Law / Fundamentals of the Marshall Trilogy / Aboriginal rights in Alaska / Post-ANCSA Tribal Sovereignty in Alaska / Post-ANCSA ‘Indian Country’ in Alaska / State of Alaska’s Historical Hostility Toward Tribal Sovereignty / Renaissance for Tribal Sovereignty in Alaska / The Tide Continues / Turn About Continues / Except for In Alaska / QUESTIONS & ANSWERS / Contrasts between tribal courts and Alaska state courts / ANCSA corporations as Native entities / Tribal land acknowledgement / “Integration” under ANCSA; land into trust / “Why haven’t I heard of tribal court in Alaska before?” / Do tribal courts write opinions? / The Major Crimes Act / Circle justice, restorative justice / Intergenerational trauma / Tribal jurisdiction and overlapping jurisdictions / Lawyers in tribal court