By Scrutinize

State court judges play a crucial role in upholding constitutional protections that safeguard individuals from abuses such as unlawful stop-and-frisk, coerced interrogations, and warrantless searches. However, judges' interpretations and applications of these rights vary significantly, affecting both individual defendants and the broader community's interactions with law enforcement. This report introduces a new metric for assessing judges: Failure to protect constitutional rights against law enforcement overreach. We analyze appellate decisions to identify cases where trial court judges ruled that officers acted constitutionally in obtaining evidence, but were overturned by higher courts. Using examples from suppression reversals and other sources, we suggest that some suppression reversals not only indicate a pattern of failing to protect constitutional rights, but may also reveal a trial court judge's bias toward law enforcement. Our new analysis enhances transparency in the judicial system, empowers New Yorkers with crucial insights about the judges serving their communities, and provides decision-makers with valuable information.

Key Findings:

1. Ninety-five judges had multiple suppression decisions reversed between 2007 and 2023.

2. Approximately 38% of the reversals (153 cases) were dismissed because of a finding that the trial court judge erred in denying suppression, suggesting that some New Yorkers may have been wrongfully incarcerated due to unconstitutionally obtained evidence.

3. An additional 69 cases were overturned due to judicial errors that limited or prevented constitutional scrutiny of law enforcement actions.

Recommendations:

1. New York's court system should increase transparency by releasing all trial court judges’ suppression rulings along with hearing transcripts.

2. New York’s court system should publish annual reports containing summary data on suppression proceedings, outcomes, and other pertinent information.

New York: Scrutinize, 2024. 24p.

By Julius Yam 

Authoritarianism has significant implications for how judges should discharge their duties. How should judges committed to constitutionalism conduct themselves when under authoritarian pressure? To answer this question,the article proposes a two-step adjudicative framework, documents a variety of judicial strategies, and proposes how principles and strategies can and should be incorporated into the framework in different scenarios. The first step of the adjudicative framework involves judges identifying the ‘formal legal position’ while blindfolding themselves to extra-legal factors (such as potential authoritarian backlash). In the second step, depending on the level of risk incurred by maintaining the formal legal position, judges should lift the blindfold to check whether, and if so how, the formal legal position should be supplemented with or adjusted by judicial strategies. Through this analysis, the article offers a guide to judicial reasoning under authoritarianism 

Modern Law Review Limited.(2023) 00(0) MLR 

By Colette Barry, Chalen Westaby, Mark Coen, Niamh Howlin

Judges are required to suppress and manage their own emotions as well as those of other court users and staff in their everyday work. Previous studies have examined the complex emotional labour undertaken by judges, but there is limited research on the emotion management performed by judges in their interactions with jurors. Drawing on a qualitative study of judge–jury relations in criminal trials in Ireland, we illustrate how judges learn and habituate emotional labour practices through informal and indirect processes. Judges described managing their emotions to demonstrate impartiality and objectivity. Their accounts also underline the importance of balancing presentations of neutrality with empathy, as well as being mindful of the potential emotional toll of jury service on jurors.

Journal of Law and Society Volume 50, Issue 4 p. 477-499