Federal Criminal Cases, 1928-1930: Surprisingly Similar to Today, But Also Very Different

In anticipation of the conference here next month on the Wickersham Commission, I’ve been reviewing the thirteen voluminous reports the Commission issued in 1931 on various aspects of the criminal-justice system.  One that holds some interesting surprises is the “Progress Report on the Study of the Federal Courts.”  The heart of this report is a fascinating, detailed statistical analysis of the criminal cases in the District of Connecticut for fiscal years 1928-1930.

One thing that strikes me as remarkable is the almost complete absence of trials — the system was dominated then, as now, by guilty pleas.  Old-timers today will sometimes tell you about a golden age of trials in the federal system in the 1970′s.  In that decade, guilty plea rates hovered between 77% and 82%.  After 1981, the rate climbed steadily, reaching more than 96% of adjudicated cases in 2009.  But this, apparently, is not a new phenomenon.  Among 740 criminal cases filed in the District of Connecticut between 1928 and 1931, only nine went to trial.  That’s right, only nine trials in three years, or 1.5 criminal trials per judge per year.  (Eight of these trials, by the way, took less than one full day to try.)  The guilty plea rate in adjudicated cases was over 98%.

After doing some digging for national data, I discovered that the guilty plea rate rose steadily between 1916 and 1933, reaching a peak of 91%.  (See Ron Wright’s helpful data compilation here.)  So, Connecticut seems not to have been terribly atypical.

The Connecticut data are, in fact, quite reminiscent of a modern“fast-track” plea-bargaining system.  

Continue ReadingFederal Criminal Cases, 1928-1930: Surprisingly Similar to Today, But Also Very Different

Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission Hearing: Student Perspective

Makda Fessahaye is a 2L student who has been working on research for the Access to Justice Commission.  Below she shares her thoughts about why a student might want to attend the Access to Justice hearing on September 13.

Cura Personalis. Marquette University Law School encourages us, as students, to follow the Jesuit educational principle, to care for the whole person, throughout our legal education, in the hopes that we embed this value into our legal careers. Through the expansive pro bono opportunities offered through Marquette, we have several chances to work with populations in great need of legal assistance. However, our calling to aid these populations does not disappear upon graduation; the need for legal assistance continues to grow. To properly demonstrate cura personalis in our legal careers, it is necessary to recognize the daily hardships our communities face and the legal issues that follow. Our Wisconsin low-income residents find difficulty with the limited and lack of access to justice to properly address the legal issues they encounter.

On Thursday, September 13, 2012, the Wisconsin Access to Justice Commission holds a public hearing at Marquette University Law School from 5:00pm to 7:30pm. At this hearing, we will have the opportunity to hear from our community leaders, judges, policy makers, and lawyers to share information about access to justice and the growing needs of low-income individuals. After hearing these testimonies, we hope to expand our knowledge, combine our efforts and properly address the lack of legal access available to our low-income population. 

Whether you are interested in going into the public sector or the corporate route, I strongly encourage you to attend this public hearing to better understand the community in which you are to serve. As future lawyers, we should acknowledge the issues that face several of our residents. Finally, as Marquette law students, we must identify with the whole issue, the whole community, and most of all, the whole person.

Continue ReadingWisconsin Access to Justice Commission Hearing: Student Perspective

Lawyering on the Right Side of the Brain

There has been quite a bit of news lately on neuroscience and the law. The Law and Neuroscience Blog specifically focuses on the topic, discussing everything from lying to U.S. Supreme Court decisions which cite neuroscience research. This trend enhances the right brain vs. left brain discussions that have been around for decades. While modern technology is challenging some of those assumptions, recent studies have taken the right brain vs. left brain discussion into politics. Right brain functions are typically identified as more creative, while the left side of the brain is often identified with analytical skills, logic, and other functions one might typically associate with skilled lawyers.

This blog post from the ABA showcases a lawyer who tapped into both sides of his brain and filed a cartoon amicus brief opposing a price-fixing settlement between the DOJ and three e-book publishers. While in the end the federal judge approved the settlement, she quoted Emily Dickinson in the ruling.

Curious about your own right brain/left brain tendencies? There are many tests on the web; this test from the Art Institute of Vancouver provides a detailed analysis focused on creativity. Want to tap into your creative side? Try Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain by Betty Edwards.

Continue ReadingLawyering on the Right Side of the Brain