Jury Trials in Japan

The Japanese seeking to involve their citizens in the judicial system as well establishing a check on the power of the judiciary have enacted legislation to create jury trials. The type of jury trial enacted by this legislation, which takes effect in 2009, is a mixed-jury system where judges and citizens participate together in the jury deliberation. This article first explores the differences between mixed-juries and the American jury system. It then suggests why the Japanese opted for a mixed-jury system. From that point the article explores psychological theory surrounding collective judgment and how dominant individuals influence the group dynamics. With these theories in mind the article explores Japanese cultural attitudes and suggests that the objective of meaningful citizen participation might be impeded in the jury deliberation process. Finally the article proposes specific procedural devices to ensure meaningful citizen participation

Judicial Integrity: A Call for its Re-Emergence in the Adjudication of Criminal Cases

A court can invalidate or rectify certain kinds of offensive official action on the grounds of judicial integrity. In the past, it has served as a check on overzealous law enforcement agents whose actions so seriously impaired due process principles that they shocked the bench’s conscience. The principle not only preserves the judiciary as a symbol of lawfulness and justice, but it also insulates the courts from becoming aligned with illegal actors and their bad acts. The 1992 case of U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain, however, may have signaled a departure from past practices. This article reviews current Supreme Court cases and finds that judicial integrity is no longer the bulwark it once was for justifying Fourth Amendment exclusionary remedies, sanctioning the Court’s use of supervisory powers, and the application of due process. The author contrasts the current Court’s view on judicial integrity with examples from Australia and New Zealand, where the doctrine has re-emerged and gained force. The author argues that in the United States, the pendulum has swung too far toward neglecting concerns inherent in the principles of judicial integrity and that judicial integrity needs to be restored

What Jurors Should Know about Informants: The Need for Expert Testimony

This Article will first explore the problem of wrongful convictions resulting in part from false informant testimony. Eyewitness exoneration has gotten considerable attention by the courts. False informant testimony exoneration has gotten less attention than other causes of exoneration. We will argue for the use of expert witnesses to assist the juries. We will explore the acceptance of expert witnesses in eyewitness identification cases. It will be our main argument that a similar approach of utilizing expert witnesses should be taken with regard to informant testimony. We will then examine the acceptance of expert testimony regarding informants using the state of Connecticut as an example. Finally, we will explore the value of the expert testimony regarding informants to demonstrate the information the fact finder should know in evaluating the credibility of an informant witness

The Challenge of Deterring Bad Police Behavior: Implementing Reforms that Hold Police Accountable

Systemic racism in the United States is pervasive. It runs through every aspect of society, from healthcare to education. Changing all of the parts of society touched by racism is necessary, however, this Article does not provide a cure for systemic racism. It seeks to address a byproduct of this racism: police brutality. Over and over, headlines broadcast the deaths of Black Americans at the hands of the police – why has nothing changed? This Article argues that meaningful reform requires trust in U.S. law enforcement, which can only be achieved by holding police accountable and deterring misconduct. To do so, this Article proposes meaningful and forceful police licensing to guarantee more third-party, unbiased oversight

Back to the Future: The Revival of \u3cem\u3ePennoyer\u3c/em\u3e in Personal Jurisdiction Doctrine and the Demise of \u3cem\u3eInternational Shoe\u3c/em\u3e

This Article argues that the Court’s recent decisions have effectively revived Pennoyer’s focus on physical presence and status, at the expense of the fairness and contact considerations set forth in International Shoe, as the bases for asserting personal jurisdiction. Part II details the jurisdictional analysis under both Pennoyer and International Shoe. Part III discusses the evolution of personal jurisdiction doctrine under International Shoe. Part IV demonstrates that the Court’s recent decisions have revitalized Pennoyer’s territorially based regime, and consequently diminished the thrust of International Shoe