Strategic Sample Selection

Are the highest sample realizations selected from a larger presample more or less informative than the same amount of random data? Developing multivariate accuracy for interval dominance ordered preferences, we show that sample selection always benefits (or always harms) a decision maker if the reverse hazard rate of the data distribution is log‐supermodular (or log‐submodular), as in location experiments with normal noise. We find nonpathological conditions under which the information contained in the winning bids of a symmetric auction decreases in the number of bidders. Exploiting extreme value theory, we quantify the limit amount of information revealed when the presample size (number of bidders) goes to infinity. In a model of equilibrium persuasion with costly information, we derive implications for the optimal design of selected experiments when selection is made by an examinee, a biased researcher, or contending sides with the peremptory challenge right to eliminate a number of jurors.

Problems of the practice of the dismissal of the jury due to the tendentiousness of the composition: the effect of a legislative error or defects of judicial practice?

The article examines problematic issues of theoretical understanding, legislative regulation and application in judicial practice of the criminal procedure the institute of the dismissal of the jury in view of its tendentiousness. The article notes that this institution is not implemented in judicial practice in a positive aspect, since all variations for the manifestation of a possible tendentiousness of the collegium are rejected by appeal and cassation courts. It is concluded that there are two irreparable contradictions in the basis of the procedural consolidation of this institution, which determine the ineffectiveness of its positive application. The first contradiction, considered in the article, arises between the need to motivate the application for the dismissal of the jury in view of its tendentiousness and the amorphousness (uncertainty) of the grounds for such a group challenge. The second contradiction arises between the absence of grounds for peremptory challenge of each of the candidates for jury and the existence of grounds for the dismissal of the jury as a whole. The article concludes that the institution under consideration does not adequately fulfill the function of a legal means ensuring the impartiality and objectivity of the jury, and should be excluded from the legislative model of proceedings in the jury trial of the Russian Federation.

Resolving ALJ Removal Protections Problem Following Lucia

When the Supreme Court decided Lucia v. SEC and held that administrative law judges (ALJs) are Officers under the Constitution, the Court opened a flood of constitutional issues around the status of ALJs and related government positions. One central issue relates to ALJs’ removal protections. ALJs currently have two layers of protection between them and the President. In an earlier Supreme Court decision, the Court held that two layers of tenure protection between an “Officer of the United States” and the President was unconstitutional as it deprived the President the power to hold his officers accountable. As impartial adjudicators, ALJs need those layers of protection to ensure fair adjudicative hearings. Lucia now threatens ALJ protections. This Note argues that implementing a peremptory challenge system which would allow each party in an adjudicative hearing to remove the ALJ from hearing its case would create an avenue in which the Court could justify the removal issue. Such a proposal would fix executive oversight concerns about the President being unable to properly implement his policy. Additionally, peremptory challenges would allow litigants in front of an agency be able to remove ALJs they feel are predisposed to the agency. By addressing both constitutional issues, the Court may be more likely to find that the two layers of tenure protection in place are permissible for those in adjudicatory positions.

It’s Still about Race: Peremptory Challenge Use on Black Prospective Jurors

Objectives: The use of race as a motive for excluding individuals from serving on juries in American criminal trials is unconstitutional. Nevertheless, Black individuals remain substantially more likely than others to be removed during jury selection through peremptory challenges. This study tests whether and to what extent there is a racial effect on peremptory challenge use by the prosecution or the defense. Method: Using data from 2,542 venire members in Mississippi, propensity score matching is used to examine racial differences in jury selection by comparing Black venire members to similarly situated White venire member counterparts. Results: Findings suggest that Black venire members are 4.51 times as likely to be excluded from a jury due to peremptory challenges from the prosecution in comparison to White venire members. Conversely, White venire members are 4.21 times as likely to be excluded through peremptory challenges by the defense in comparison to Black venire members. Conclusions: After controlling for all observed variables, there remain significant differences between White and Black venire members, suggesting racial discrimination by both the prosecution and the defense in peremptory challenge usage. Black individuals are more likely to be excluded from juries through these effects, resulting in less racially diverse juries.