Judicial Mistakes

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Strict Scrutiny If a statute impinges on a fundamental right, such as those listed in the Bill of Rights or the due process rights of the Fourteenth Amendment, then the court will apply strict scrutiny. This means the statute must be "narrowly tailored" to address a "compelling state interest." The courts will also apply strict scrutiny if the law targets a suspect classification, such as race. For example, there is no fundamental right to be an optician (as explained above), but if the state only requires licenses of African Americans (and not opticians of other races), that double standard would receive strict scrutiny, and would likely be ruled unconstitutional. Canada In Canada, a decision of a tribunal, board, commission or other government decisionmaker can be reviewed on two standards depending on the circumstances. The two standards applied are "correctness" and "reasonableness". In each case, a court must undertake a "standard of review analysis" to determine the appropriate standard to apply. This approach was described in detail by the Supreme Court of Canada in Dunsmuir v New Brunswick, 2008 SCC 8. According to the Supreme Court of Canada in Housen v Nikolaisen, 2002 SCC 30: {{quote|text=The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a 'palpable and overriding error.' A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. The reasons for deferring to a trial judge's findings of fact can be grouped into three basic principles. Firstly, given the scarcity of judicial resources, setting limits on the scope of judicial review in turn limits the number, length and cost of appeals. Secondly, the principle of deference promotes the autonomy and integrity of the trial proceedings. Finally, this principle recognizes the expertise of trial judges and their advantageous position to make factual findings, owing to their extensive exposure to the evidence and the benefit of hearing the testimony 'viva voce.' The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only when the inference-drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion. Page 56 of 166
VII. <strong>Judicial</strong> Misconduct <strong>Judicial</strong> misconduct occurs when a judge acts in ways that are considered unethical or otherwise violate the judge's obligations of impartial conduct. Actions that can be classified as judicial misconduct include: conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration of the business of the courts (as an extreme example: "falsification of facts" at summary judgment); using the judge's office to obtain special treatment for friends or relatives; accepting bribes, gifts, or other personal favors related to the judicial office; having improper discussions with parties or counsel for one side in a case; treating litigants or attorneys in a demonstrably egregious and hostile manner; violating other specific, mandatory standards of judicial conduct, such as judicial rules of procedure or evidence, or those pertaining to restrictions on outside income and requirements for financial disclosure; and acting outside the jurisdiction of the court, or performance of official duties if the conduct might have a prejudicial effect on the administration of the business of the courts among reasonable people. Rules of official misconduct also include rules concerning disability, which is a temporary or Page 57 of 166
Page 2 and 3:
Page 2 of 166
Page 4 and 5:
Page 4 of 166
Page 6 and 7: Page 6 of 166
Page 10 and 11: 4. Throughout the process, we encou
Page 18 and 19: This work is not meant to be a piec
Page 20 and 21: Fundamental Error is a legal term p
Page 22 and 23: for the Third Circuit found a funda
Page 24 and 25: 2. FAILURE TO OBTAIN DEFENDANT’S
Page 26 and 27: http://ebenchbk.law.umn.edu/index.p
Page 28 and 29: 2009) (Waiver of right to counsel b
Page 30 and 31: 16. REFUSAL TO ALLOW DEFENDANT’S
Page 32 and 33: Matter of the Welfare of N.T.K. 619
Page 34 and 35: Some states make a distinction betw
Page 36 and 37: The concept of miscarriage of justi
Page 38 and 39: In cases where a large-scale audien
Page 40 and 41: Norway Norwegian police, courts, an
Page 42 and 43: in April 1999. All cases accepted b
Page 46 and 47: However, the specific term "actual
Page 48 and 49: convicted persons do not have a con
Page 52 and 53: Questions of Fact Arbitrary and Cap
Page 54 and 55: decision will be subject to clearly
Page 58 and 59: permanent condition rendering judge
Page 60 and 61: Supreme Court Candidacy and Electio
Page 62 and 63: Another report stated that Hathaway
Page 64 and 65: The News cited expert speculation t
Page 66 and 67: Born near Princess Anne, Maryland,
Page 68 and 69: He remained in the Continental Cong
Page 70 and 71: Death Samuel Chase died of a heart
Page 74 and 75: of law (a trial) would "dampen" the
Page 76 and 77: Supreme Court of Virginia v. Consum
Page 78 and 79: Notes _____________________________
Page 100 and 101: Page 100 of 166
Page 102 and 103: Page 102 of 166
Page 104 and 105: Page 104 of 166
Page 106 and 107:
Page 106 of 166
Page 108 and 109:
Page 108 of 166
Page 110 and 111:
Page 110 of 166
Page 112 and 113:
Page 112 of 166
Page 114 and 115:
Page 114 of 166
Page 116 and 117:
Page 116 of 166
Page 118 and 119:
Page 118 of 166
Page 120 and 121:
Page 120 of 166
Page 122 and 123:
Page 122 of 166
Page 124 and 125:
Page 124 of 166
Page 126 and 127:
Page 126 of 166
Page 128 and 129:
Page 128 of 166
Page 130 and 131:
Page 130 of 166
Page 132 and 133:
Page 132 of 166
Page 134 and 135:
Page 134 of 166
Page 136 and 137:
Page 136 of 166
Page 138 and 139:
Page 138 of 166
Page 140 and 141:
Page 140 of 166
Page 142 and 143:
Advocacy Foundation Publishers The
Page 144 and 145:
XVI for Drug-Free Communities Landm
Page 146 and 147:
Vol. VIII 2022 ComeUnity ReEngineer
Page 148 and 149:
Vol. XV 2029 Inner-Cities Revitaliz
Page 150 and 151:
The e-Advocate Monthly Review 2018
Page 152 and 153:
2021 Biblically Responsible Investi
Page 154 and 155:
The e-Advocate Quarterly Special Ed
Page 156 and 157:
Legal Missions International Page 1
Page 158 and 159:
Vol. V 2019 XVII Russia Q-1 2019 XV
Page 160 and 161:
The e-Advocate Newsletter Genesis o
Page 162 and 163:
Extras The Nonprofit Advisors Group
Page 164 and 165:
About The Author John C (Jack) John
Page 166:
Page 166 of 166
show all

Judicial Mistakes

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?