The Experts below are selected from a list of 13965 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Michael Heise - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
plaintiphobia in state Courts redux an empirical study of state Court Trials on appeal plaintiphobia in state Courts redux
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael HeiseAbstract:Two findings dominate prior empirical studies of federal civil appeals. First, appeals Courts are more likely to disrupt jury verdicts than bench decisions. Second, trial Court defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. But federal cases are limited by subject matter and comprise a small fraction of the nation's civil litigation activity. This study, which exploits a uniquely comprehensive database of state Court Trials and civil appeals, presents the first statistical models of the appeals process for a comprehensive set of state Court civil Trials. Using data from 46 large counties consisting of 8,038 Trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that state Court appellate reversal rates for jury Trials and appeals by defendants exceed the reversal rates for bench Trials and appeals by plaintiffs. The reversal rate for Trials appealed by plaintiffs is 21.5% compared to 41.5% for trial outcomes appealed by defendants. The reversal rate for jury Trials is 33.7% compared to 27.5% for judge Trials. Both descriptive analyses as well as more formal selection models point to appellate judges' attitudes toward trial-level adjudicators as an important explanation for these asymmetric outcomes of civil appeals in state Courts. Our results are generally consistent with prior research on federal Court appeals but also suggest a higher reversal rate of trial outcomes in state Court compared to federal Court.
-
plaintiphobia in state Courts redux an empirical study of state Court Trials on appeal
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael HeiseAbstract:Prior federal and state civil appeals studies show that appeals Courts overturn jury verdicts more than bench decisions and that defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. Attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses may help explain an appellate Court tilt that favors defendants. This study builds on and extends our prior work on state civil appeals and examines a comprehensive state Court civil appeals data set to test leading theories on appellate outcomes as well as to explore the relation between plaintiff success at trial and on appeal. Using data from 40 different states and 141 counties on 8,872 completed civil Trials and 646 concluded appeals, we find that appellate reversal rates for jury Trials and defendant appeals exceed reversal rates for bench Trials and plaintiff appeals. The reversal rate for plaintiff appeals is 21 percent, compared with 40.9 percent for defendant appeals. The reversal rate for jury Trials is 33.1 percent, compared with 25 percent for bench Trials. Both the attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses find some level of support in our descriptive analyses and results from more formal models. Finally, we find little correlation between how plaintiffs fare at trial and how they fare on appeal.
-
Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal
The Journal of Legal Studies, 2009Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael HeiseAbstract:Abstract Prior federal civil appellate studies show that appeals Courts overturn jury verdicts more than bench decisions and that defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. Attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses may explain the appellate Court tilt favoring defendants. This study presents the first statistical models of the appeals process for a comprehensive set of state Court civil Trials to test theories on appellate outcomes. Using data from 46 large counties on 8,038 Trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that appellate reversal rates for jury Trials and defendant appeals exceed reversal rates for bench Trials and plaintiff appeals. The reversal rate for plaintiff appeals is 21.5 percent, compared with 41.5 percent for defendant appeals. The reversal rate for jury Trials is 33.7 percent, compared with 27.5 percent for bench Trials. Descriptive analyses and more formal models suggest that appellate judges’ attitudes toward trial‐level adjudicators help explain these asymmetric outcomes.
Theodore Eisenberg - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
plaintiphobia in state Courts redux an empirical study of state Court Trials on appeal plaintiphobia in state Courts redux
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael HeiseAbstract:Two findings dominate prior empirical studies of federal civil appeals. First, appeals Courts are more likely to disrupt jury verdicts than bench decisions. Second, trial Court defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. But federal cases are limited by subject matter and comprise a small fraction of the nation's civil litigation activity. This study, which exploits a uniquely comprehensive database of state Court Trials and civil appeals, presents the first statistical models of the appeals process for a comprehensive set of state Court civil Trials. Using data from 46 large counties consisting of 8,038 Trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that state Court appellate reversal rates for jury Trials and appeals by defendants exceed the reversal rates for bench Trials and appeals by plaintiffs. The reversal rate for Trials appealed by plaintiffs is 21.5% compared to 41.5% for trial outcomes appealed by defendants. The reversal rate for jury Trials is 33.7% compared to 27.5% for judge Trials. Both descriptive analyses as well as more formal selection models point to appellate judges' attitudes toward trial-level adjudicators as an important explanation for these asymmetric outcomes of civil appeals in state Courts. Our results are generally consistent with prior research on federal Court appeals but also suggest a higher reversal rate of trial outcomes in state Court compared to federal Court.
-
plaintiphobia in state Courts redux an empirical study of state Court Trials on appeal
Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 2015Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael HeiseAbstract:Prior federal and state civil appeals studies show that appeals Courts overturn jury verdicts more than bench decisions and that defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. Attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses may help explain an appellate Court tilt that favors defendants. This study builds on and extends our prior work on state civil appeals and examines a comprehensive state Court civil appeals data set to test leading theories on appellate outcomes as well as to explore the relation between plaintiff success at trial and on appeal. Using data from 40 different states and 141 counties on 8,872 completed civil Trials and 646 concluded appeals, we find that appellate reversal rates for jury Trials and defendant appeals exceed reversal rates for bench Trials and plaintiff appeals. The reversal rate for plaintiff appeals is 21 percent, compared with 40.9 percent for defendant appeals. The reversal rate for jury Trials is 33.1 percent, compared with 25 percent for bench Trials. Both the attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses find some level of support in our descriptive analyses and results from more formal models. Finally, we find little correlation between how plaintiffs fare at trial and how they fare on appeal.
-
Plaintiphobia in State Courts? An Empirical Study of State Court Trials on Appeal
The Journal of Legal Studies, 2009Co-Authors: Theodore Eisenberg, Michael HeiseAbstract:Abstract Prior federal civil appellate studies show that appeals Courts overturn jury verdicts more than bench decisions and that defendants fare better than plaintiffs on appeal. Attitudinal and selection effect hypotheses may explain the appellate Court tilt favoring defendants. This study presents the first statistical models of the appeals process for a comprehensive set of state Court civil Trials to test theories on appellate outcomes. Using data from 46 large counties on 8,038 Trials and 549 concluded appeals, we find that appellate reversal rates for jury Trials and defendant appeals exceed reversal rates for bench Trials and plaintiff appeals. The reversal rate for plaintiff appeals is 21.5 percent, compared with 41.5 percent for defendant appeals. The reversal rate for jury Trials is 33.7 percent, compared with 27.5 percent for bench Trials. Descriptive analyses and more formal models suggest that appellate judges’ attitudes toward trial‐level adjudicators help explain these asymmetric outcomes.
Samantha Fairclough - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
using hawkins s surround field and frames concepts to understand the complexities of special measures decision making in crown Court Trials
Journal of Law and Society, 2018Co-Authors: Samantha FaircloughAbstract:Adjustments to criminal trial processes, called special measures, are available to vulnerable and/or intimidated witnesses giving evidence. Findings from interviews with 13 criminal practitioners suggest that there are notable variations in the uptake of special measures between prosecution witnesses, defence witnesses, and the accused in Crown Court Trials. These extend beyond any inequality in their legal provision. This article uses Keith Hawkins's conceptual framework of surround, field, and frames as a heuristic device to understand this differential uptake. The framework delineates the various factors – including the socio‐political, organizational, and attitudinal – which can influence decision‐making practices in relation to special measures. In doing so, this article demonstrates two things. First, that changing the legal provision is unlikely to effect much change in practice, absent specific complementary changes to the field. Second, that Hawkins's framework has potential as an explanatory device in decision‐making contexts outside his own health and safety setting.
-
the role of equality in the provision of special measures to vulnerable and or intimidated Court users giving evidence in crown Court Trials
2017Co-Authors: Samantha FaircloughAbstract:Vulnerable and/or intimidated Court users are able to give evidence with the assistance of special measures. This thesis examines the role of equality in the provision of such measures to those giving evidence in Crown Court Trials. I adopt Keith Hawkins’ conceptual framework of surround, field and frames to analyse the multitude of factors relevant to understanding its role. The standard of equality I invoke is that which underpinned the initial development of special measures for non-defendant witnesses. This is used to assess whether the law remains committed to equal treatment despite the unequal provision of special measures between vulnerable and/or intimidated defendant and non-defendant witnesses. Furthermore, using findings from interviews undertaken with 18 criminal practitioners, I consider the role that the principle of equality appears to play in the use of special measures. I conclude that the principle of equality is not consistently upheld in the provision of special measures in law and practice. Barriers to its more prominent role include the way, and the socio-political context in which, special measures law developed; the legal field in which they are invoked; and the way that criminal practitioners appear to frame decisions about their use.
-
it doesn t happen and i ve never thought it was necessary for it to happen barriers to vulnerable defendants giving evidence by live link in crown Court Trials
International Journal of Evidence and Proof, 2017Co-Authors: Samantha FaircloughAbstract:Witnesses and defendants are able to give evidence by live link provided that they meet the vulnerability criteria set out in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act (1999). The vulnerability c...
Kazuo Matsubara - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Triazolam Impairs Avoidance Reaction-A Scientific Proof Why the Victim does not Escape from Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assaults
Journal of Forensic Psychology, 2016Co-Authors: Keiko Shimizu, Tomohiro Ohmura, Katsuhiro Okuda, Masaru Asari, Hiroshi Shiono, Kazuo MatsubaraAbstract:Following closely behind levels in Western countries, the number of drug-facilitated sexual assaults (DFSAs), involving the illicit use of medicine, has been recently increasing in Japan. Tirazolam is the most frequently used date-rape drug in DFSAs occurring in Japan. In this study, the effect of triazolam on behavior in response to fear and anxiety was evaluated using an elevated plus-maze test in mice. Triazolam-treated animals (0.01 mg/kg) showed no significant difference in total locomotor activity compared with vehicle-treated mice (controls). On the contrary, activity levels on the open arms of the apparatus (time spent, mean value of movement), where mice would normally feel anxiety or fear, were significantly increased in triazolam-treated mice compared with controls. However, total locomotor activities on the plus-maze were not different between two groups, indicating that sedation was not induced by tirazolam under these conditions. These results suggest that triazolam treatment led the mice to become insensitive to fear and anxiety; their defence reactions were impaired. We conclude that this finding provides scientific evidence in reply to defence arguments presented in Court Trials that there is little or no evidence of the victim attempting to escape from a sexual assault. Additionally, the finding is as true of other benzodiazepine receptor agonists as of triazolam.
浅利 優 - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Triazolam Impairs Avoidance Reaction-A Scientific Proof Why the Victim does not Escape from Drug-Facilitated Sexual Assaults
2016Co-Authors: 清水 惠子, シミズ ケイコ, Shimizu Keiko, 大村 友博, オオムラ トモヒロ, Ohmura Tomohiro, 奥田 勝博, オクダ カツヒロ, Okuda Katsuhiro, 浅利 優Abstract:This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Following closely behind levels in Western countries, the number of drug-facilitated sexual assaults (DFSAs), involving the illicit use of medicine, has been recently increasing in Japan. Tirazolam is the most frequently used date-rape drug in DFSAs occurring in Japan. In this study, the effect of triazolam on behavior in response to fear and anxiety was evaluated using an elevated plus-maze test in mice. Triazolam-treated animals (0.01 mg/kg) showed no significant difference in total locomotor activity compared with vehicle-treated mice (controls). On the contrary, activity levels on the open arms of the apparatus (time spent, mean value of movement), where mice would normally feel anxiety or fear, were significantly increased in triazolam-treated mice compared with controls. However, total locomotor activities on the plus-maze were not different between two groups, indicating that sedation was not induced by tirazolam under these conditions. These results suggest that triazolam treatment led the mice to become insensitive to fear and anxiety; their defence reactions were impaired. We conclude that this finding provides scientific evidence in reply to defence arguments presented in Court Trials that there is little or no evidence of the victim attempting to escape from a sexual assault. Additionally, the finding is as true of other benzodiazepine receptor agonists as of triazolam
