Attorneys\u27 Perspectives on Choice of Forum in Diversity Cases

This report will first outline the arguments relating to proposals to change diversity of citizenship jurisdiction from the perspective of how additional empirical evidence can advance the arguments, and then provide data on lawyers\u27 perceptions of factors that are important in the decision to file in either state or federal court

Is Procedural Fairness Applicable to All Courts?

In a white paper of the American Judges Association published in this journal, Judges Kevin Burke and Steve Leben present a powerful case for using the principles of procedural fairness: Judges must be aware of the dissonance that exists between how they view the legal process and how the public before them views it. While judges should definitely continue to pay attention to creating fair outcomes, they should also tailor their actions, language, and responses to the public’s expectations of procedural fairness. By doing so, these judges will establish themselves as legitimate authorities; substantial research suggests that increased compliance with court orders and decreased recidivism by criminal offenders will result. Procedural fairness also will lessen the difference in how minority populations perceive and react to the courts

American Review: Volume 42, Issue 1 - DWI Courts: The Newest Problem-Solving Courts

Problem-solving court s — m o re accurately, specialized dockets—are established to deal with problems that may benefit from focused and sustained attention. These courts include a treatment component in an effort to reduce recidivism, which in turn reduces the number of future arrests, prosecutions, and court cases. Specialized drug courts appeared in the late 1980s in response to the dramatic increase in drug offenses. Some drug courts, often referred to as “drug-treatment courts,” emphasize treatment as the way to reduce recidivism. Essential elements of drug courts include: (1) immediate intervention; (2) nonadversarial adjudication; (3) hands-on judicial involvement; (4) treatment programs with clear rules and structured goals; and (5) a team approach that brings together the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, treatment provider, and correctional staff. Although there are variations, the drug-treatment courts usually include judicial supervision of community-based treatment, timely referral to treatment, regular status hearings to monitor treatment progress, mandatory and periodic drug testing, and a system of graduated sanctions and rewards. The success of drug courts has renewed interest in other types of problem-solving courts, such as community courts, domestic-violence courts, and mental-health courts.4 The newest such court to gain acceptance in many communities handles alcohol-impaired drivers

Court Review: Volume 44, Issue 3 – When Should Judges Use Alcohol Monitoring as a Sentencing Option in DWI Cases?

Traditional sentencing sanctions have not been particularly effective against people caught driving while impaired (DWI) and less so against repeat offenders. Technology has provided judges with some new sentencing options, including various forms of electronic home monitoring. This article takes an initial step toward evaluating the effectiveness of alcohol monitoring as a sentencing option in DWI cases with the goal of eventually determining which types of offenders, if any, would benefit most from alcohol monitoring. The constant monitoring of alcohol consumption is thought to aid rehabilitation by providing a deterrent to drinking and a positive reinforcement to sobriety. It permits offenders to remain employed, to fulfill family obligations, and to remain in treatment. Judges may be less familiar with transdermal methods that monitor alcohol through the skin than with blood, breath, or urine testing. There are two transdermal measuring devices— the Wrist Transdermal Alcohol Sensor (WrisTAS) by Giner, Inc., and the Secure Continuous Remote Alcohol Monitor (SCRAM) bracelet by Alcohol Monitoring Systems, Inc. The former device, though clinically tested, is not yet commercially available perhaps because it is not yet sufficiently water or tamper resistant

Court Review: Volume 40, Issue 3-4 - How Useful Is the New Aggressive Driving Legislation?

Aggressive driving usually refers to a disregard for others on the road and is distinguished from the more extreme “road rage,” which involves violent, criminal acts. Nevertheless, with an 1,800 reported incidents of violent road behavior involving the use of an automobile in the United States in 1996, it is a national problem requiring attention. Aggressive driving is responsible for more than 27,000 fatalities per year as well as over 3,000,000 injuries, costing over $150 billion dollars. A survey of 6,000 drivers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that 60% of the drivers interviewed believed that unsafe driving by others is a major personal threat to them and their families. A December 2, 2003 AAA survey found aggressive driving to be the top threat on Washington, D.C. area roads. Forty-three percent of the respondents said that aggressive driving was more of a danger than traffic congestion and road conditions, and even impaired driving. Moreover, AAA notes that aggressive driving has been increasing 7% per year since 1990. The incidents that trigger aggressive driving in the average driver are usually simple matters of discourtesy—hand and facial gestures, loud music, overuse of the horn, tailgating, speeding, and failure to signal when changing lanes. These driving behaviors are just the trigger points, while the actual causes of aggressive driving can be traced back to all forms of stress in an individual’s daily life. “Road warriors” are the result of a flashpoint of all the accumulated stresses in life. Like driving under the influence, aggressive driving is not a simple action, but a behavioral choice drivers make. NHTSA defines aggressive driving as follows: “when individuals commit a combination of many traffic offenses as to endanger persons or property.” A more specific definition is “the operation of a motor vehicle involving three or more moving violations as part of a single, continuous sequence of driving acts which is likely to endanger any person or property.” Driving acts are ones you would expect: running stop signs, disobeying red lights, speeding, tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, passing on the right, unsafe lane changes, going around railroad gates, flashing lights and blowing horns, facial and hand gestures. Although some states have enacted laws specifically directed at aggressive driving, many do not distinguish aggressive driving from other traffic offenses. A national study of 2,858 cases showed that exceeding the posted speed limit was the most frequently used indicator of aggressive driving cases (914) and that improper lane changes (512) and driving too closely (233) were other common offenses that indicated aggressive driving

Court Review: Volume 40, Issue 3-4 - How Useful Is the New Aggressive Driving Legislation?

Aggressive driving usually refers to a disregard for others on the road and is distinguished from the more extreme “road rage,” which involves violent, criminal acts. Nevertheless, with an 1,800 reported incidents of violent road behavior involving the use of an automobile in the United States in 1996, it is a national problem requiring attention. Aggressive driving is responsible for more than 27,000 fatalities per year as well as over 3,000,000 injuries, costing over $150 billion dollars. A survey of 6,000 drivers by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) found that 60% of the drivers interviewed believed that unsafe driving by others is a major personal threat to them and their families. A December 2, 2003 AAA survey found aggressive driving to be the top threat on Washington, D.C. area roads. Forty-three percent of the respondents said that aggressive driving was more of a danger than traffic congestion and road conditions, and even impaired driving. Moreover, AAA notes that aggressive driving has been increasing 7% per year since 1990. The incidents that trigger aggressive driving in the average driver are usually simple matters of discourtesy—hand and facial gestures, loud music, overuse of the horn, tailgating, speeding, and failure to signal when changing lanes. These driving behaviors are just the trigger points, while the actual causes of aggressive driving can be traced back to all forms of stress in an individual’s daily life. “Road warriors” are the result of a flashpoint of all the accumulated stresses in life. Like driving under the influence, aggressive driving is not a simple action, but a behavioral choice drivers make. NHTSA defines aggressive driving as follows: “when individuals commit a combination of many traffic offenses as to endanger persons or property.” A more specific definition is “the operation of a motor vehicle involving three or more moving violations as part of a single, continuous sequence of driving acts which is likely to endanger any person or property.” Driving acts are ones you would expect: running stop signs, disobeying red lights, speeding, tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, passing on the right, unsafe lane changes, going around railroad gates, flashing lights and blowing horns, facial and hand gestures. Although some states have enacted laws specifically directed at aggressive driving, many do not distinguish aggressive driving from other traffic offenses. A national study of 2,858 cases showed that exceeding the posted speed limit was the most frequently used indicator of aggressive driving cases (914) and that improper lane changes (512) and driving too closely (233) were other common offenses that indicated aggressive driving