The Discreet Charm of the Mixed Jury: The Epistemology of Jury Selection and The Perils of Post-Modernism

The first section of this Article will introduce the dynamics of the relationship between two competing visions of impartiality as it has played out in the opinions of federal and state courts, including secondary sources. I call the two approaches modernist and post- modernist and examine the arguments that have sought to broaden the scope of the fair cross-section requirement in the name of the latter view, a perspective similar to that motivating the district judge in the Crown Heights case. Part II identifies the Supreme Court\u27s opening gestures in the direction of the post-modernist model. Part III carries the development forward, presenting the problems and tensions that have resulted in an uneasy and pragmatic accommodation be- tween the older modernist model and its would-be post-modernist successor. This accommodation can be seen most plainly in the interplay of opposing theoretical and practical considerations that inform the jury selection process at two discrete points in time: an early (venire) and late stage (peremptory challenges) of the process. Parts IV and V will pause to examine one particular manifestation of what I designate the post-modern vision of jury selection; one ironically with roots in an ancient historical tradition that attempts to secure more solid theoretical foundations for community participation in juries. These efforts certainly do not lack good intentions. Moreover, the post-modernist critique provides some important insights into the inadequacies of the pure modernist paradigm. Still, it is my conclusion that moving in the direction of a more overtly post-modern model would be ill founded and could ultimately prove destructive, rather than restorative, for the institution of the jury and for civil society in general

The Discreet Charm of the Mixed Jury: The Epistemology of Jury Selection and The Perils of Post-Modernism

The first section of this Article will introduce the dynamics of the relationship between two competing visions of impartiality as it has played out in the opinions of federal and state courts, including secondary sources. I call the two approaches modernist and post- modernist and examine the arguments that have sought to broaden the scope of the fair cross-section requirement in the name of the latter view, a perspective similar to that motivating the district judge in the Crown Heights case. Part II identifies the Supreme Court\u27s opening gestures in the direction of the post-modernist model. Part III carries the development forward, presenting the problems and tensions that have resulted in an uneasy and pragmatic accommodation be- tween the older modernist model and its would-be post-modernist successor. This accommodation can be seen most plainly in the interplay of opposing theoretical and practical considerations that inform the jury selection process at two discrete points in time: an early (venire) and late stage (peremptory challenges) of the process. Parts IV and V will pause to examine one particular manifestation of what I designate the post-modern vision of jury selection; one ironically with roots in an ancient historical tradition that attempts to secure more solid theoretical foundations for community participation in juries. These efforts certainly do not lack good intentions. Moreover, the post-modernist critique provides some important insights into the inadequacies of the pure modernist paradigm. Still, it is my conclusion that moving in the direction of a more overtly post-modern model would be ill founded and could ultimately prove destructive, rather than restorative, for the institution of the jury and for civil society in general

Market-Based Instruments for the Optimal Control of Invasive Insect Species: B. Tabaci in Arizona

Invasive insect species represent perhaps one of the most significant potential sources of economic risk to U.S. agricultural production. Private control of invasive insect species is likely to be insufficient due to negative externality and weaker-link public good problems. In this study, we compare a system of Pigouvian taxes with tradable permits for invasive species control. While the emissions control literature shows that taxes are preferred to permits under cost uncertainty, invasive-species control involves correlated cost and benefit uncertainty. Hence, we expect a quantity-based system to be preferred. Monte Carlo simulations of optimal steady-state outcomes confirm our expectations.externalities, invasive species, optimal control, permits, spatial-temporal model, taxes, Crop Production/Industries, Resource /Energy Economics and Policy,

Market-Based Instruments for the Optimal Control of Invasive Insect Species: B. Tabaci in Arizona

Invasive insect species represent perhaps one of the most significant potential sources of economic risk to U.S. agricultural production. Private control of invasive insect species is likely to be insufficient due to negative externality and weaker-link public good problems. In this study, we compare a system of Pigouvian taxes with tradable permits for invasive species control. While the emissions control literature shows that taxes are preferred to permits under cost uncertainty, invasive species control involves correlated cost and benefit uncertainty, so we expect a quantity-based system to be preferred. Monte Carlo simulations of optimal steady-state outcomes confirm our expectations.externalities, invasive species, optimal control, permits, spatial-temporal model, taxes., Environmental Economics and Policy, Public Economics, Risk and Uncertainty, H23, L51, Q28, Q57.,

L^2-Betti numbers of one-relator groups

We determine the L^2-Betti numbers of all one-relator groups and all surface-plus-one-relation groups (surface-plus-one-relation groups were introduced by Hempel who called them one-relator surface groups). In particular we show that for all such groups G, the L^2-Betti numbers b_n^{(2)}(G) are 0 for all n>1. We also obtain some information about the L^2-cohomology of left-orderable groups, and deduce the non-L^2 result that, in any left-orderable group of homological dimension one, all two-generator subgroups are free.Comment: 18 pages, version 3, minor changes. To appear in Math. An