Acts and resolves passed by the General Court.

Title varies slightly.

The juvenile court; a status report.

Bibliography: p. 19-24.

The life of Sir James Fitzjames Stephen, Bart, K.C.S.I., a judge of the High Court of Justice /

"Bibliographical note": p. [483]-486.

Transcript of record : United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, October term 1936, no. 6868 : Railroad Retirement Board and Murray W. Latimer, James A. Dailey, and Lee M. Eddy, individually and as members of the Railroad Retirement Board, and Guy T. Helvering, individually and as Commissioner of Internal Revenue, appellants vs. the Alton Railroad Company and others : appeal from the District Court of the United States for the District of Columbia, filed October 22, 1936.

Cover title.

The possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignty: The High Court and the Yorta Yorta decision

Race is fundamental in shaping the development of Australian law just as it has played its part in other former colonies, such as the United States, where a body of critical race theory has been established on the basis of this premise. Drawing on this theory I argue that the possessive logic of patriarchal white sovereignty works ideologically to naturalise the nation as a white possession by informing and circulating a coherent set of meanings about white possession as part of common sense knowledge and socially produced conventions in the High Court's Yorta Yorta decision.

Non-English-speaking defendants in the magistrates court:a comparative study of face-to-face and prison video link interpreter-mediated hearings in England

This study compares interpreter-mediated face-to-face Magistrates Court hearings with those conducted through prison video link in which interpreters are located in court and non- English-speaking defendants in prison. It seeks to examine the impact that the presence of video link has on court actors in terms of interaction and behaviour. The data comprises 11 audio-recordings of face-to-face hearings, 10 recordings of prison video link hearings, semistructured interviews with 27 court actors, and ethnographic observation of hearings as viewed by defendants in Wormwood Scrubs prison in London. The over-arching theme is the pervasive influence of the ecology of the courtroom upon all court actors in interpretermediated hearings and thus on the communication process. Close analysis of the court transcripts shows that their relative proximity to one another can be a determinant of status, interpreting role, mode and volume. The very few legal protocols which apply to interpretermediated cases (acknowledging and ratifying the interpreter, for example), are often forgotten or dispensed with. Court interpreters lack proper training in the specific challenges of court interpreting, whether they are co-present with the defendant or not. Other court actors often misunderstand the interpreter’s role. This has probably come about because courts have adjusted their perceptions of what they think interpreters are supposed to do based on their own experiences of working with them, and have gradually come to accept poor practice (the inability to perform simultaneous interpreting, for example) as the norm. In video link courts, mismatches of sound and image due to court clerks’ failure to adequately track current speakers, poor image and sound quality and the fact that non-English-speaking defendants in pre-and post-court consultations can see and hear interpreters but not their defence advocates are just some of the additional layers of disadvantage and confusion already suffered by non- English-speaking defendants. These factors make it less likely that justice will be done.

Redefining 'media' using a 'media-as-a-constitutional-component' concept:an evaluation of the need for the European Court of Human Rights to alter its understanding of 'media' within a new media landscape

This paper considers the impact of new media on freedom of expression and media freedom within the context of the European Convention on Human Rights and European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence. Through comparative analysis of US jurisprudence and scholarship, this paper deals with the following three issues. First, it explores the traditional purpose of the media, and how media freedom, as opposed to freedom of expression, has been subject to privileged protection, within an ECHR context at least. Secondly, it considers the emergence of new media, and how it can be differentiated from the traditional media. Finally, it analyses the philosophical justifications for freedom of expression, and how they enable a workable definition of the media based upon the concept of the media-as-a-constitutional-component.

Evaluating and improving the opposing expert safeguard against junk science

In Daubert, the Supreme Court opined that opposing expert testimony is an effective safeguard against junk science in the courtroom. Although jurors maybe unable to identify flaws in scientific research without some assistance, social psychological research suggests that people can be trained to make more sophisticated judgments about scientific quality. Further, previous research demonstrated that an opposing expert who addresses the methodology of proffered expert testimony may not enable jurors to evaluate scientific validity. In three studies, I tested why this safeguard was ineffective using a variety of stimulus materials. In the first study, I examined the mediating effect of attitudes on juror decisions within the context of a sexual harassment trial. In the second study, I examined the moderating effect of the presentation of expert credentials on participant decisions regarding child suggestibility literature. In the third study, I tested several improvements to the safeguard using improvements designed to correct for the effects of attitudes and credential presentation on juror decisions within the context of a first-degree murder trial. I found that while opposing expert testimony may have potential as a safeguard, in its current form it is ineffective. That is, a traditional opposing expert caused jurors to be skeptical of all expert testimony rather than sensitizing them to the validity of the research presented at trial. Further, while the improvements tested in this study may have potential to assist jurors in making scientifically sound decisions, more research is needed to further test and refine these improvements. ^