This article tests the legal realist theory of judicial behavior, which posits that judges' ideology impacts their legal decisions, but that the law constrains the judges' ability to exercise those preferences.
This issue highlights RAND research findings on the effectiveness of correctional education in U.S. prisons; an exploration of how emerging technologies present an ongoing challenge to the criminal-justice community; and more.
RAND researchers investigated two potential contributors to biased testimony within adversarial litigation involving forensic evidence: experts' knowledge of which side they were testifying for, and lack of input from relevant scientific communities.
This brief analyzes the factors that led to the exposure of widespread abuse in the diagnoses in thousands of silica injury claims in Texas, then suggests ways to uncover such abuses in mass personal-injury litigation more easily in the future.
Silica inhalation injury claims skyrocketed beginning in 2001, prompting concerns that silicia litigation would become a mass tort. It instead collapsed following the uncovering of abusive diagnostic practices, which can be decreased or even prevented if changes in several areas of litigation procedures are pursued.
Judges have been taking their new role seriously and applying stricter standards to determine what sort of expert evidence is admissible. They also found that plaintiffs and defendants responded to the change in admissibility standards.