There's much of appellate note in the DJ over the past couple days;
- The DJ's obit for Judge Hug is Procter R. Hug Jr. 1931-2019: Procter R. Hug Jr. served as
chief judge of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, pushing back efforts to
break up the multi-state court during his term from 1996 to 2000.
- "Chief Judge
Hug's warmth, optimism, vision, intelligence, eloquence, quiet perseverance,
and sense of humor made him one of the most effective chief judges in the
history of the circuit," [Chief Judge] Thomas said. "He was a man of unquestioned
integrity and high character. He promoted collegiality among judges and always
calmed any turbulent waters with gentle humor and grace. He was a great friend,
and it was an honor to serve with him."
[10/24 update: See
Judge Hug Press Release]
- Justice Hoffstadt penned Shocks: After or Fore? about the "kill zone" theory in the recent case of People v. Canizales, 7 Cal.5th 591 (2019).
- In The Common Law Rules, Howard Miller writes about the Supreme Court of the UK
- And Gregory Dickinson presents Oral arguments: A computational analysis drawing on his recent article in the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy here.
"Surely
befuddling to advocates, some virtually identical questions can carry very
different implications. For example, receiving the question "would you
clarify one thing?" from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a powerful
indicator that she is unlikely to side with your argument. However, she employs
the almost identical question, "may I ask you to clarify?" when
asking for additional information from parties she ultimately sides with. The
slight difference in phrasing is almost certainly subconscious, varying based
on whether she expects to be persuaded by the advocate's response. Such minute
differences would have been undetectable without the help of computational
analysis."
Posts
