Judicial fact finding: trial by judge alone in serious criminal cases

The ability to choose between trial by jury and trial by judge alone in some jurisdictions presupposes a rational basis for exercising the choice. In this article, the author examines judicial factfinding modalities from comparative and systemic perspectives. The conclusion drawn is that both judicial fact-finders and lay fact-finders process their decision-making similarly. In both instances, fact-finding involves the assimilation of disparate and sometimes complex information. In each case, the drawing of inferences is, of necessity, dependent upon heuristic reasoning. Furthermore, the application of principles of law to proven facts is inexact. However, there are a number of inbuilt safeguards in judicial fact-finding that promote rationality and inhibit cognitive illusion.Vicki Way

The dawning of the age of the litigation entrepreneur

In the United States, claims aggregators have appeared as a new form of litigation entrepreneur. Claims aggregators collect claims from nominal claim holders then prosecute the claims in a single action. As such they constitute a potential form of competition for class action attorneys and litigation financiers as providers of access to justice. This article examines claims aggregation in three common law jurisdictions--England, Australia and the United States--and compares claims aggregation with another well established form of entrepreneurial litigation, the class action. Legal and financial impediments to the growth in claims aggregation are also considered.