Evaluating diffuse support for state high courts among individuals with varying levels of policy agreement

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damon Cann ◽  
Jeff Yates
Keyword(s):  
High Courts ◽  
Diffuse Support ◽  
State High Courts ◽  
Policy Agreement

Appeals by the Prosecution

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy J. King ◽  
Michael Heise
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Work ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Sample ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
Court Of Appeals ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Extensive Information ◽  
State High Courts ◽  
State Prosecutors ◽  
Rate Of Success

Scholarly and public debates about criminal appeals have largely taken place in an empirical vacuum. This study builds on our prior empirical work exploring defense-initiated criminal appeals and focuses on criminal appeals by state and federal prosecutors. Exploiting data drawn from a recently released national sample of appeals by state prosecutors decided in 2010, as well as data from all appeals by federal prosecutors to the United States Court of Appeals terminated in the years 2011 through 2016, we provide a detailed snapshot of non-capital, direct appeals by prosecutors, including extensive information on crime type, claims raised, type of defense representation, oral argument and opinion type, as well judicial selection, merits review, and relief. Findings include a rate of success for state prosecutor appeals about four times greater than that for defense appeals (roughly 40% of appeals filed compared to 10%). The likelihood of success for state prosecutor-appellants appeared unrelated to the type of crime, claim, or defense counsel, whether review was mandatory or discretionary, or whether the appellate bench was selected by election rather than appointment. State high courts, unlike intermediate courts, did not decide these appeals under conditions of drastic asymmetry. Of discretionary criminal appeals reviewed on the merits by state high courts, 41% were prosecutor appeals. In federal courts, prosecutors voluntarily dismissed more than half the appeals they filed, but were significantly less likely to withdraw appeals from judgments of acquittal and new trial orders after the verdict than to withdraw appeals challenging other orders. Among appeals decided on the merits, federal prosecutors were significantly more likely to lose when facing a federal defender as an adversary compared to a CJA panel attorney.

The jurisdiction of State High Courts in Nigeria

2000 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-271 ◽  
Author(s):  
Enefiok Essien
Keyword(s):  
Federal Republic ◽  
Criminal Proceedings ◽  
High Court ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Civil Proceedings ◽  
State High Courts ◽  
Legal Right

The jurisdiction of State High Courts in Nigeria is to be found in section 236(1) of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The section provides:“236(1). Subject to the provisions of this constitution and in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by law, the High Court of a State shall have unlimited jurisdiction to hear and determine any civil proceedings in which the existence or extent of a legal right, power, duty, liability, privilege, interest, obligation or claim is in issue or to hear and determine any criminal proceedings involving or relating ot any penalty, forfeiture, punishment or other liability in respect of an offence committed by any person.”

Comparing Institutional and Policy Explanations for the Adoption of State Constitutional Amendments

2011 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 1097-1126 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert J. Hume
Keyword(s):  
Event History Analysis ◽  
Event History ◽  
Same Sex ◽  
Constitutional Amendments ◽  
Same Sex Marriage ◽  
State Institutions ◽  
High Courts ◽  
History Analysis ◽  
Recent Activity ◽  
State High Courts

The literature on state constitutional amendments remains undeveloped despite recent activity in the area of same-sex marriage policy. Previous studies have assumed that the adoption of state constitutional amendments is governed by routine policy considerations, but there are strong theoretical reasons for expecting attributes of state institutions also to affect adoption. In this study, I compare institutional and policy explanations for the enactment of state constitutional amendments prohibiting same-sex marriage. Although I expect routine policy considerations to affect the adoption of amendments, I also expect adoption to be influenced by attributes of state institutions, in particular, the capacity of state high courts to produce decisions favoring marriage equality. Using event history analysis, I find that the initial consideration of amendments is driven by policy considerations but that adoption is also guided by institutional considerations, such as the professionalization of state high courts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document