Judges Take the Stand

Chad Oldfather has a new paper on SSRN reviewing William Domnarski’s book Federal Judges Revealed.  Not exactly the lurid exposé suggested by the title, Domnarski’s book synthesizes the insights he gained from reviewing more than 100 oral histories given by federal judges to different interviewers over a period of many years.  As Chad notes, oral histories have the potential to add much to our understanding of the judiciary, for judges are generally less guarded about their personal views and experiences in these interviews than in their written opinions.  On the other hand, as a drawback to oral history, Chad notes that there is no clearly established, rigorous methodology for taking an oral history.  That may be one reason that Domnarski’s book apparently lacks any really surprising insights into the federal judiciary.

As one of the more interesting aspects of the book, Chad highlights Domnarski’s treatment of the role of judicial clerks: “Federal Judges Revealed provides valuable testimony from judges regarding how they use their clerks, and how much they depend on them.”  For instance, one judge says, “[M]any of [my clerks] have an ability to grasp technical details and relationships that entirely escape me.  Let’s face it; I try to get clerks who are significantly brighter than I am.”  Some may find such statements about the importance of clerks a bit troubling — one might question who is really in charge, the presidentially appointed judge or the fresh-out-of-law-school clerk. 

Continue ReadingJudges Take the Stand

Memories of Sensenbrenner Hall (Part 1)

As the Law School community prepares to leave our current home and move into a new facility, it seems appropriate to pause and recall some of the memorable events that have taken place in Sensenbrenner Hall over the years.  Professor Jack Kircher shares the first of what we hope will be many faculty memories recounting the various classroom surprises, distinguished visitors, and construction oddities associated with our present surroundings.  These memories will ensure that Sensenbrenner Hall lives on forever in our hearts.  

My first memory of Sensenbrenner Hall goes back to my time as a 1L.  At that time, the library occupied all of the third floor, the second floor had two large classrooms and a moot court room, the first floor had two large classrooms, and the administrative offices (Dean, etc.) occupied the space now used by Admissions.  During the 2d semester of my first year, we were in our Contracts class during the early afternoon in a second floor classroom that occupied all of the east side of that floor (now Rooms 204 and 210). It must have been Springtime, as I remember that the windows in the room were open (they opened back then).  Unbeknownst to us, Marquette University had just announced that the school would no longer play varsity football beginning the following fall.  As we sat there in class, discussing some arcane Contracts issue, we slowly began to hear the chant “we want football” coming from the west.

Continue ReadingMemories of Sensenbrenner Hall (Part 1)

From M’Naghten to Hinckley to Clark: “The Incredible Shrinking Insanity Defense”

In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten (left) killed the secretary of the Prime Minister of England.  Medical evidence introduced at his murder trial indicated that he suffered paranoid delusions, leading to his acquittal and eventually to judicial recognition of something like the modern insanity defense. 

After a period of expansion in the mid-twentieth century, the insanity defense has been progressively restricted since John Hinckley’s successful use of the defense during his trial on charges arising from his attempted assassination of President Reagan.  Janie Kim now recounts the story of the “incredible shrinking insanity defense,” as she calls it, in a fascinating new paper on SSRN.

She focuses particularly on the Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Clark v. Arizona. 

Continue ReadingFrom M’Naghten to Hinckley to Clark: “The Incredible Shrinking Insanity Defense”