Jump to:

Tobacco Institute

Judicature [Report to Members and List of Donors]

Date: Oct 1986
Length: 67 pages
TITX0022270-TITX0022336
Jump To Images
snapshot_ti TITX1117.53-TITX1118.17

Fields

Date Loaded
13 May 1999
Type
PERIODICAL / NEWS ARTICLES
Site
TI Storage Box 775, Cb707
Named Organization
Arnold & Porter
Cahill Gordon & Reindel
Carlton Fields Ward Emmanuel
Connell Foley & Geiser
Covington & Burling
Davis Polk & Wardwell
Duane Morris & Heckscher
Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson
Kirkland & Ellis
Kirkpatrick & Lockhart
Kramer Johnson Rayson Mcveigh & Leake
Latham Watkins & Hills
Lawler Felix & Hall
Mccutchen Doyle Brown & Enersen
Memel Jacobs Pierno Gersh & Ellsworth
Morrison & Foerster
Perkins Coie
Potter Anderson & Corroon
Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis
Sullivan & Cromwell
Thelen Marrin Johnson & Bridges
Titus Marcus & Shapira
Venable Baetjer and Howard
Vinson & Elkins
Vorys Sater Seymour & Pease
West Publishing
Dunnels Duvall Bennett & Porter
Hahn Loeser Freedheim Dean & Wellman
Pierce Atwood Scribner Allen Smith & L
American Judicature Society
Ny Times
Federal Judicial Ctr
House Com
Cole Hanson and Silbert
Alpert Crouch and Huff
Buffalo Legal Aid Society
New Kent County School Board
Charlotte Mecklenburg County Board of
Dept of Justice
Northern Pipeline Consturction
Marathon Pipe Line
Will Merhige and Rubin
Ryan Ashman Sales and Shane
Wall & Schiller
Stevenson Watson and Weissman
Gale Research
American Bar Assn
Michie
Aiglife Insurance
Advisory Com
Knight Fond
Recipient (Organization)
American Judicature Society
Author
Mudrick, D.P.
Toppins, R.K.
Sullivan, J.A.
Doyle, J.T.
Polansky, L.P.
Grimit, R.T.
Adams, A.M.
Smith, C.E.
Miller, B.K.
Devins, N.E.
Nase, J.P.
Kritzer, H.M.
Kleiman, B.S.
Maccoun, R.J.
Ending Date
Nov 1986
Litigation
Texas AG
Named Person
Chauvin, S.
Raven, R.D.
Williams, G.H.
Richert, D.
Burnham, D.
Ballwanz, J.
Kowalski, S.J.
Sampson, K.
Shaman, J.M.
Lyon, M.
Begue, Y.
Gewerth, K.E.
Hayden, J.
Stevenson, G.
Wells, C.
Garner, E.
Nicholson, M.
Parness, J.
Cohen, F.
Reiter, J.
Ward, G.
Weaver, M.
Halpin, K.
Houston, S.
Joseph, J.
Lewis, C.
Stanford, J.
Wilson, R.
Adams, A.M.
Smith, C.E.
Miller, B.K.
Devins, N.E.
Nase, J.P.
Kritzer, H.M.
Kaye, J.S. 1
Green, D.M.
Keyes, M.F.
Kleiman, B.S.
Maccoun, R.J.
Wishman, S.
Hans, V.P.
Vidmar, N.
Simon, P.
Carter, J.
Mondale, W.
Roosevelt, F.
Biden, S.
Meese, E.
Rehnquist
Bird, R.
Culver
Glick
Emmert
Reagan
Nihan, C.W. 2
Hamilton, A.
Marbury
Madison
Bryce
Claiborne, H.E.
Cooper
Pate
Horowitz
Glazer
Walker
Taylor
Ruffin
Banning
Looney
Bell
Wolfish
Russell
Parratt
Bodner
Johnson
Avery
Fulwood
Clemmer
Wolff
Mcdonnell
Lee
Downs
Hewitt
Helms
Jacobs
Ruiz
Estelle
Rhodes
Chapman
Gamble
Pugh
Locke
Finney
Mabry
Yarbrough
Ely, J.H.
Spiller
Horgan
Harriman
Straussman
Kendrick
Bland
Hoptowit
Spellman
Baker
Carr
Robbins
Bronstein
Heckler
Mathews
Liberta
Wachtler
Califano
Goldfarb
Howe, B.
Hood
Webb
Truman
Green
Swann
Bivens
Carlson
Tribe, L.H.
Higginbotham, P.
Kaufman
Vining, J.
Hoffman, R.B.
Gillespie
Meador
Edwards
Johnsen, R.A.
Heydebrand
Carrington
Chayes
Aldisert
Watson
Bedlin
Nejelski
Alschuler
Mcthenia
Shaffer
Mnookin
Kornhauser
Cavanagh
Kaye, J.S. 3
Cuomo, M.
Cox, A.
Rafshoon, L.
Mccarthy
Penn, W.
Lockhart
Mccree
Kalman
Blasi, V.
Frankfurter
Williams, G.
Carpenter, E.N.
Mckay, R.B.
Myers, R.D.
Henry Woe
Rinaman, J.C.
Holdman, S.
Mccurdy, J.A.
England, A.J.
Kerr, E.T.
Luongo, A.L.
Markey, H.
Oviatt, R.H.
Phillips, H.
Snow, C.
Waugh, A.P.
Sulmonetti, A.T.
Harley, H.L.
Frazza, G.S.
Abrahamson, S.
Simon, R.
Monahan, P.J.
Bauer, W.J.
Schafran, L.H.
Pe, C.
Abramson, L.W.
Rosenblum, V.G.
Civiletti, B.R.
Murphy, D.E.
Nygren, K.F.
Crawford, W.W.
Utter, R.F.
Cochran, M.L.
Toll, M.J.
Bierman, M.H.
Carrigan, J.R.
Gee, G.E.
Pringle, E.E.
Steele, W.A.
Greenfield, J.R.
Battaglia, V.F.
Biondi, F.O.
Hawkins, S.V.
Brooksley, E.
Kessler, G.
Levin, L.
Barnett, M.W.
Kerr, A.L.
Petrey, R.N.
Richman, G.F.
Robertson, J.E.
Rush, F.G.
Strawn, D.U.
Fitzpatrick, R.
Huie, S.W.
Mayoue, J.C.
Okinaga, L.S.
Hurlbutt, D.C.
Snyder, G.C.
Reynoldson, W.W.
Sievert, F.H.
Simon, L.P.
Cole, G.G.
Winter, H.L.
Curtin, J.J.
Fisher, F.G.
Hammer, R.A.
Clark, J.S.
Darlow, J.D.
Teitelman, R.B.
Hewitt, J.W.
Manoukian, N.E.
Batchelder, W.F.
Pollock, S.G.
Skinner, R.S.
Hoffberg, D.L.
Maccrate, R.
Marshall, E.G.
Robb, L.T.
Medd, J.D.
Webster, N.R.
Hieronymus, E.D.
Titus, P.H.
Greenhill, J.R.
Harrell, M.
Tartt, B.
Durham, C.M.
Chappell, R.H.
Lateef, N.V.
Lawson, T.T.
Prince, W.T.
Andrews, D.J.
Heizer, R.E.
UCSF Legacy ID
jps32f00

Annotations

1. Kaye, J.S. Named Person
  • Affiliation:

    Ajs

2. Nihan, C.W. Named Person
  • Affiliation:

    Judicial Fellows Commission

3. Kaye, J.S. Named Person
  • Affiliation:

    Ajs

Document Images

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size:

Page 41: jps32f00
r" 0 prominent public issue and a common subject of newspaper and news maga- zine commentary. For judicial conduct organizations, this turn of events offers both a challenge and an opportunity. The opportunity is provided by greater public awareness. Citizens are beginning to learn about judicial conduct organi- zations and what it is that they do. They are no longer relegated to some obscure corner of the legal and governmental world. But commission members and staffs must also be aware that the press and public will seek to hold them ac- countable, and will not hesitate to critic- ize when they appear to fall short. This is as i t shou ld be. Mem bers of j udicia l con- duct boards, we may presume, are no more likely to be angels than judges. Having created judicial conduct groups to control judges, we must now face the question of how to control judicial con- duct groups. As Hamilton himself recognized, none of the mechanisms built into our frame- work of government to protect against arbitrary or unjust rule is foolproof. "A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government," he believed, and instruments such as a federal system, or separation of powers, or impeachment, were only what he called "auxiliary precautions," like judi- cial conduct organizations. A tradition of openness Another of the most effective auxiliary precautions against tyranny is one of the most distinctively American. It is an instrument that by itself exerts no direct coercive force, but has proven to be tre- mendously powerful throughout our his- tory. I refer to our tradition of openness, of holding certain critical public pro- ceedings in the sunshine, open to public scrutiny. This "precaution," I believe, may be of special value to judicial con- duct organizations as they seek to estab- lish their legitimacy with the public. In fact, openness of the judicial con- duct proceedings may be mandated by our Constitution-at least at some stage. The First Amendment states that the federal government shall "make no law abridging freedom of speech, or of the press." This provision also applies to the states, through the 14th Amendment. Is is now clearly established that the First Amendment requires that certain governmental proceedings, such as a crim- inal trial or a pretrial hearing, be kept open to the press and public. In a series of recent opinions, the Supreme Court has determined that proceedings that histori- cally have been open may not be closed to the public, if granting access plays a "sig- nificant positive role in the functioning of the particular process in question." The criminal trial, for instance, has long been conducted in the open. In Justice Brennan's words, this "tradition of acces- sibili ty implies the favorable j udgmen t of experience." Equally apparent are the many benefits that flow from holding trials in the open: heightening public respect for the judicial process; allowing an outlet for public indignation; educat- ing the public; and enabling the public to serve as a check on this vital governmen- tal process. Thus the Constitution was held to require open trials in the usual criminal proceeding. Similar considerations, I believe, apply to judicial inquiry boards. Public access to judicial discipinary proceedings, I suggest, would advance the First Amend- ment's "core purpose of assuring free- dom of communication on matters relat- ing to the functioning of government," as former Chief Justice Burger put it. A right of access This issue recently arose in the court on which I serve. The question was whether the press and public had a right of access to Pennsylvania's Judicial Inquiry and Review Board. The press sought to in- spect the transcript of a hearing into alleged misconduct by a state appellate judge: The initial complaint had been cleared as non-frivolous, and after a full investigation, the Board filed formal charges and held an adversary hearing on the charges. After the hearing, the Board, in a 5 to 2 vote, declined to recom- mend sanctions to the Pennsylvania Su- preme Court. In a 7 to 4 split, our court ruled that the public had no right of access to the transcript of the proceedings. The major- ity of our court concluded that the ac- cess-to-criminal-trial cases did not con- trol in this instance, because judicial disciplinary proceedings lacked a tradi- tion of openness. The dissent contended 174 Judicature Volume 70, Number 3 October-November, 1986 that the relevant historical inquiry re- quired consideration not only of the prior practices of Pennsylvania's board, (up until this particular case the pro- ceedings had always been public) but also of the history of impeachment, the functional analogue of today's judicial disciplinary panels. Significantly, while it rejected the dissent's historical argu- ment, that the Constitution required openness, the majority did not dispute the proposition that society would derive significant benefits from public access to proceedings involving non-frivolous complaints regarding state judges. Which view ultimately will prevail as a matter of constitutional law is not clear. No other federal court of appeals has considered the issue, but several law reviews have published commentary on access to judicial disciplinary proceed- ings. It may be that the Supreme Court will be called upon to decide the issue. However the federal constitutional in- quiry is resolved, the policy question re- mains. The U.S. Constitution sets min- imum standards, but it does not speak to the wisdom of providing for access in state constitutions or statutes. I believe that the arguments advanced in support of the conclusion that the Constitution requires some degree of access to judicial disciplinary proceedings strongly sup- port allowing access as a matter of pol- icy. Public access will be an essential component in meeting the challenge posed by the current concern with judi- cial misconduct. Legitimacy, in my view, rests in large measure on public understanding. De- nial of access to the disposition of formal charges against judges may well create an impression that such decisions are "based on secret bias and partiality," as former Chief Justice Burger said in the context of the criminal trial. Closure may "breed suspicion of prejudice and arbitrariness, which in turn spawns dis- respect for law." Access also promotes what Professor Vincent Blasi of Columbia University has called "The checking value of the First Amendment." An informed public is far better equipped to serve as a check on both our judiciary and our judicial watchdogs, the members of conduct or- ganizations. For members of judicial conduct groups, the knowledge that the press and public may review their ac- TITX 0022311
Page 42: jps32f00
tions Will reduce or eliminate bias or partiality. And, a public educated by exposure to judicial disciplinary pro- ceedings should be able to evaluate judges more knowledgeably, an espe- cially strong consideration where judges are elected. Let my position beclearly understood. I do not advocate that all proceedings of judicial conduct organizations be laid open to public scrutiny. And I agree that there is a strong interest in protecting against unfair injury to a judge's reputa- tion. Boards should be able to screen out frivolous complaints without divulging names and charges. Moreover, investiga- tions prior to formal charges should be conducted secretly. But once a complaint has been deemed sufficiently meritor- ious to justify an adversary hearing, then in all but the most unusual situation, a transcript of the hearing should be avail- able for public inspection, at least after the board has decided the outcome. To the extent that there is any danger of unfair injury to a judge's reputation, disclosure of the full transcript of pro- ceedings, including the basis of the deci- sion to sustain or dismiss the charges, should protect the individual's rights. I Conclusion It seems to me that judges must be wary of their own instincts when they discuss how to monitor judicial conduct. At both state and federal levels, we are steeped in the mystique of the judiciary, with its special need for independence and immunity from political influence. ~ By using the term mystique, I do not mean to deprecate the distinctive role of the judiciary. Quite the contrary: judi- cial independence is deserving of the most vigorous, even fervent, protection. And, when secrecy is necessary to a judi- cial proceeding, as it is with a decisional conference of a collegial court, it too must be defended. But the aura that accompanies the judiciary, because of its special needs, should not lead us to entrust judges with prerogatives beyond those necessary for judicial independence. Judges have pre- rogatives not because we are special citi- zens, but because judicial independence helps secure the liberty of all the people. It is sometimes argued that disclosure of judicial conduct proceedings would undermine public confidence in the judi- ciarv, and thus erode the legititnacy of the courts. This argument has an inter- esting unstated premise: The less people comprehend, the more trusting they will become. It may be that just the opposite is true. All of us know, just as Hamilton did, that our public officials are not angels, and that even judges sometimes breach their duties. In today's climate, citizens need assurance not that judges are unlike other mortals, but that the organizations created to protect against j udges who occasional ly do go astray are functioning with vigilance and impar- tiality. Openness has long been recognized as a crucial protection against arbitrary government. Justice Frankfurter wrote that "A free press is not to be preferred to an independent judiciary, nor an inde- pendent judiciary to a free press. Both are indispensable to a free society." Free- ing the press and public to scrutinize our new scrutinizers of the judiciary-to guard, if you will, the guards them- selves-represents a vital means of assur- ing the continued vitality of an inde- pendent judiciary and the free society it works to preserve. 0 ARLIN M. ADAMS is a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. This article is adapted from an address delivered at the opening of the Tenth National Conference for Judicial Conduct Organizations on September 17, 1986. State Justice Letters (continued from page 141) Editor's note: We certainly are pleased to know that Judicature is being read, and appreciate Mr. Grimit's kind comments about the journal. The editors, of course, have to take responsibility for the possi- bly misleading quote on page 110. We call such quotes "teasers"; the purpose is to attract readers into the article with a provocative statement. Authors' note: We did not intend to evaluate the quality of education judges receive. We state in the article that it is difficult to do so and that a superior education usually is construed to mean attendance at an Ivy League school. This is a conventional distinction made in much research about courts and it is con- sistent with studies of the law profession which find that lawyers frequently have different career opportunities depend- ing partly on the kind of law school they attend. This may involve prestige dis- tinctions, but assumptions also some- times are made that the Ivy League schools provide a superior, more nation- ally oriented legal education. We recog- nize the subjective content of these kinds of evaluations and we do not necessarily endorse them. We also do not imply that judges who have attended other kinds of schools have received inferior or inade- quate educations. Institute Executive Director The State Justice Institute is seeking an Executive Director. The Institute was established by the State Justice Institute Act of 1984 to further the development and adoption of improved judicial ad- ministration in the state courts through a program of financial assistance. The Director is responsible for the executive and administrative operations of the Institute and other duties as delegated by the Institute's Board of Directors. Applicants must have a law degree or have completed a graduate program in public or business administration or the social sciences. They must have a broad background in legal and judicial con- cerns, possess strong managerial and administrative skills, demonstrate verbal and writing ability, and be willing to live and work in the Washington, D.C. area. It is desirable though not mandatory that applicants have experience in deal- ing with legislators and executive level officials, demonstrate a prior talent and interest in the improvement of the ad- ministration of justice, and have famil- iarity with grant programs. Salary is in the $65,000-$70,000 range depending on experience and ability. Applicants should send a letter explaining their interest in the position, a current resume, and a list of references to: Mr. Larry Polansky 500 Indiana Avenue, N. W. Washington, D.C. 20001 (202) 879-1700 All applications must be received no later than December 12, 1986. TITX 0022312 175
Page 43: jps32f00
:1'_. _. , a 0 0 0 [ G ld Thousands of Aitcms have overed that our life insuranoe and long twm disabffity insura~oe pl"ood a lot less than adw goup plaffi for Attomeys. n rwr e y. N/GLIFE Underwritten by: Up To $250,000 Up To a$5,000 itten b• Monthly Benefit U d Group Term Group Long Term Life Insurance Disability Insurance INSIRANCECOMPANY jHE HARTFORD w~ A Member Company of „' ` I American I nterriational Group The Inwrame Peo* of ITT For additional information call toll-free today: 1-800-323-4487 (In Illinois - 1-800-942-6743) Administration office is open 9 am to 5 pm Central Standard time. Attorneys Group Inwoce Trust ` 4 South State Sheet, 3outh HoIWd€ 81inoi6 60473 TITX 0022313 176 Judicature Volume 70, Number 3 October-November, 1986
Page 44: jps32f00
r 7)1' 0cus~~~~- , Motion on the merits: an effective response to appellate congestion and delay By Dale M. Green and Michael F. Keyes For the first time in more than a decade, Division III of the Washington State Court of Appeals is current-congestion and delay are no longer problems. t Be- cause of a "Motion on the Merits" proce- dure, first utilized on an experimental basis in Division III and now being implemented statewide, it is now possi- ble for an appeal to be filed and decided within a year. The procedure evolved when the judges recognized that judicial panels were spending considerable time processing appeals where issues (1) were clearly con- trolled by settled state law, (2) were fac- tual and the evidence was sufficient to support the trial court's decision, or (3) involved the exercise of a trial judge's discretion that was clearly not abused. In virtually all of these appeals the trial court was affirmed. The judges concluded that if a procedure could be developed to divert these cases from the judges for initial decision, not only would disposi- tions be increased, but appeals raising truly meritorious issues could be heard and decided by the judges without exces- sive delay. After several years of experi- mentation in Division III, the Washing- ton Supreme Court adopted the motion on the merits procedure for use state- wide.z It is proving to be a significant tool in controlling congestion and delay. The procedure The procedure may be initiated in two ways. After the record on appeal has been completed and the appellant's brief is filed, a respondent may file a motion to affirm the trial court's decision on the merits. This motion is then set for argu- ment before a commissioner.' The argu- ment is recorded on tape. If, after argu- ment, the commissioner decides the decision of the trial court should be re- versed, he files an order returning the appeal to the regular docket for decision by a panel of judges. On the other hand, if the commissioner decides the trial court's decision should be affirmed, he files a written ruling stating the reasons for the decision. 168 Judicsture Volume 70, Number 3 The second way of initiating the pro- cedure is on the court's own motion after a screening process. After the record and briefs are filed, judges screen the cases for purposes of certification to the supreme court and to discover cases suitable for the motion on the merits procedure. When such a suitable case is found, the chief judge enters an order directing the appellant to appear before a named com- 1. As of December 1, 1985, there were only 8 ready cases in Division III that might not be set for hear- ing during the 1986 winter term, i.e., January, Feb- ruary and March. This means that at a maximum, the delay between when a case is ready, i.e., with all briefs on file, and when it will be heard is 4 months. This represents a 10- to 12-month reduction of delay in Division III in less than 2S4 years. 2. Rule of Appellate Procedure 18.14 provides: "(a) Generally. The appellate court may, on its own motion or on motion of a party, affirm a deci- sion or any part thereof on the merits in accordance with the procedures defined in this rule. A motion by a party pursuant to this rule should be denomi- nated a 'motion on the merits.' The general motion procedures defined in Title 17 apply to a motion on the merits only to the extent provided in this rule. "(b) Time. A party may submit a motion on the merits any time after the appellant's brief has been filed. The appellate court on its own motion may, at any time, set a case on the motion calendar for disposition and enter orders the court deems appro- priate to facilitate the hearing and disposition of the case. The clerk will notify the parties of the setting and of any orders entered by the court. "(c) Content, Filing, and Service; Response. A motion on the merits should be a separate docu- ment and should not be included within a party's brief on the merits. The motion should comply with Rule 17.3(a), except that material contained in a brief may be incorporated by reference and need not be repeated in the motion. The motion should be filed and served as provided in Rule 17.4. A response may be filed and served as provided in Rule 17.4(e) and may incorporate material in a brief by reference. "(d) Who Decides Motion. A motion on the mer- its shall be determined initially by a judge or com- missioner of the appellate court. "(e) Considerations Governing Decision on Mo- tion. A motion on the merits will be granted in whole or in part if the appeal or any part thereof is determined to be clearly without merit. In making these determinations, the judge or commissioner will consider all relevant factors including whether the issues on review (1) are clearly controlled by settled law, (2) are factual and supported by the evidence, or (3) are matters of judicial discretion and the decision was clearly within the discretion of the trial court. "(f) Oral Argument. A motion on the merits may be denied without oral argument if the case obvi- ously requires full appellate review. In all other instances Rule 17.5 applies to a motion on the merits, except that oral argument will ordinarily be granted (or a motion on the merits that is to be decided initially Yy the judge or judges. If the appellate court initiates the motion on the merits, the parties will be given an opportunity to submit briefs on the twotion before the date set for oral argument on the motion. October-November, 1986 missioner at a certain time and place to show cause why the trial court should not be affirmed. The case is then handled as described above. The commissioner's written ruling is subject to review by a panel of judges if, within 10 days, a party files a motion to modify the decision.' If a motion to mod- ify is not filed, the decision becomes final. If, however, a motion is filed, it is "(g) Form of Decision Denying Motion. Rule 17.6 is applicable to a decision denying a motion on the meri ts. "(h) Form of Decision Granting Motion. A rul- ing or decision granting a motion on the meri ts will be concise and will include a description of the facts sufficient to place the issues in context, a statement of the issues, and a resolution of the issues with supportive reasons. "(i ) Review of Ruling. A ruling or decision deny- ing a motion on the merits or referring the motion to the judges for decision pursuant to Rule 17.2(b) is not subject to review by the judges. A ruling or decision granting a motion on the merits by a single judge or commissioner is subject to review as pro- vided in Rule 17.7. "(j) Nondisqualification of Judge. Participation in a ruling or decision on a motion on the merits does not thereby disqualify a judge from further participation in the case. "(k) Procedure Optional With Court. The Su- preme Court or any division of the Court of Appeals may, by general order, decide not to use the procedure defined by this Rule." 3. Court of Appeals Administrative Rule 16 pro- vides in part: "The court of appeals shall have such personnel as are authorized by supreme court rule. The per- sonnel will be appointed by and serve at the plea- sure of the division of the court to which they report. "(c) Gommissioner. To promote the effective administration of justice, the judges of each div- ision of the Court of Appeals will appoint one or more commissioners of the court. The salary of the commissioners will be fixed by the court. "(1) Deciding Motions. The commissioners will hear and decide those motions authorized by the Rules of Appellate Procedure and any additional motions that may be assigned to the commissioners by the court. "(8) Qualifications. The commissioners must be graduates of an accredited law school and members in good standing of the Washington State Bar Asso- ciation and, prior to appointment, have at least 5 years of experience in the practice of law or in a judicially related field." 4. Rule of Appellate Procedure 17.7 provides: "An aggrieved person may object to a ruling of a commissioner ... only by a motion to modify the ruling directed to the judges of the court served by the commissioner...The motion to modify the rul- ing must be served on all persons entitled to notice of the original motion and filed in the appellaee court not later than 10 days after the ruling is filed. A motion to the justices in the Supreme Court will be decided by a panel of five justices unless the court directs a hearing by the court en banc." TITX 0022305
Page 45: jps32f00
NO POSTAGE NECESSARY IF MAILED IN THE UNITED STATES BUSINESS REPLY CARD FIRST CLASS PERMIT No 48475 CHICAGO ILLINOIS POSTAGE WILL BE PAID BY AMERICAN JUDICATURE SOCIETY 25 East Washington, Suite 1600 Chicago, Illinois 60602 TITX 0022334
Page 46: jps32f00
Sumner T. Bernstein Raymond Berry William W. Berry Richard M. Bilby , John M. Bixler Hugo L. Black, Jr. Robert L. Black, Jr. W. F Blanks John H. Blish George R. Blue Janet R. Blue Jerome E. Bogutz Russell K. Bolton John J. Borer, Jr. Hugh H. Bownes Joel M. Boyden A. O. Bracey, III Charles W. Bradley, Jr. Maurice W. Bralley, Jr. George E. Brand, Jr. Paul W. Brandel L. Travis Brannon, Jr. William J. Brennan, III Jermiah J. Bresnahan, Jr. James T Bridges Elvin J. Brown James W. R. Brown Robert A. Brown W. Robert Brown Richard P. Brown, Jr. H. C. Buckingham, Jr. Martin J. Burke Charles E Burns Jacob Burns John D. Butzner, Jr. Dan B. Buzzard L. Paul Byrne George E. Campbell Robert M. Campbell Kent Caperton John L. Carey James D. Carmichael, Jr. Arthur A. Carrellas Philip V. Carter Roch Carter Elbert N. Carvel Donald L. Castle Ralph L. Cavalli Bernard Cedarbaum Samuel T Cespedes J. LeVonne Chambers B. M. Miller Childers Corinne Childs Joseph E. Cirigliano Ralph E. Clark, Jr. Atreus M. Clay Erwin L. Clemens A. G. Cleveland, Jr. F. Douglas Cochrane Sheldon S. Cohen Wallace M. Cohen Avern L. Cohn Gloria G. Cole James A. Cole, Jr. Daniel F. Collins Frederick Colombo A. B. Conant, Jr. John L. Coney James P. Connelly Laurence D. Connor Ernest S. Cookerly J. Gordon Cooney Gordon R. Cooper Howard F. Corcoran Jack Corinblit Robert Corontzos John R. Couch H. A. Courtney Melvin E. Cowart M. Jeanne Coyne W. Carroll Coyne J. Roth Crabbe Bruce N. Cracraft John M. Cranston Richard D. Cudahy Robert P. Cummins Charles G. Cunningham G. Alan Cunningham Louis D. Curet Larry J. Dagenhart Robert S. Daggett Thomas M. Davies De Forest P. Davis Ilus W. Davis Oscar H. Davis William R. Davis James H. Davis, III S. Joseph Davis, Jr. John E. Dawson AJS' Center for Judicial Conduct Organizations held its Tenth National Confer- ence in Chicago in September, bringing together nearly 200 JCO Thomas J. Du Bos Warren W. Eginton Alex Elson Arthur J. England, Jr. Ervin M. Entrekin Burdette W. Erickson James R. Erickson Haliburton Fales, [I William F. Fant Robert T Farr J. Kay Felt Edward H. Fenlon Albert E. Fey Joseph J. Fine S. Richard Fine Sewall S. Fine Robert V. Fink Leon Finley Bennett H. Fishler, Jr. Morgan L. Fitch, Jr. Macklin Fleming members, judges, professors, reporters and others interested in studying judicial conduct and discipline, and in improving their own work in the field. Public access to and confidentiality of the work of JCOs, and the related problem of media relations, were major themes of the conference, keynoted by Judge Arlin M. Adams of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. (Judge Adams' remarks appear on page 142 of this issue. ) Participants also heard remarks by Dan Webb, former United States Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois and chief prosecutor in the "Greylord" investigation, in which six judges were convicted of crimes committed in the course of their duties. Webb spoke about the merits and demerits of undercover investi- gations of judges. Dennis C. De Berry Merlin A. De Conti Harold R. De Moss, Jr. Warren A. Deahl John K. Dear Dickinson R. Debevoise Max Frank Deutz Anna M. Di Genio Robert J. Dixson John F. Dodd William H. Dodd Norbert L. Doligalski Gretchen G. Donaldson Frank W. Donovan James R. Dooley John B. Doolin Patricia Dore Wm E. Dougherty, Jr. William M. Drennen Noel C. Fleming Philip A. Fleming Betty B. Fletcher Leon S. Forman S. Joseph Fortunato Etha B. Fox Henry H. Fox C. Carleton Frederici Paul A. Freund E. M. Friend, Jr. Gus A. Fritchie, Jr. Jerome L. Froimson Robert V. Fullerton Royal Furgeson, Jr. Samuel C. Gainsburgh Fournier J. Gale, III Ronald H. Galowich Robert T Gannett M. Leon Garmon, Jr. John J. Gartland, Jr. James E. Garvey William L. Garwood Andrew R. Gelman C. William Gilchrist John S. Gilman Robert M. Ginn D. Wayne Gittinger John W. Glendening, Jr. Fred M. Gloth, Jr. John E. Golden John Wood Goldsack . Louis L. Goldstein Emanuel H. Gottesman Christian V. Graf Hardy Moore Graham Fred D. Green Joyce Hens Green Patrick A. Green John E. Greenbacker Joe R. Greenhill Ralph H. Greil Frederick P. Greiner Jack Gross Richard E. Guggenhime Clarence A. Guittard Frank A. Gulotta, Jr. Hanley M. Gurwin Charles T Hagan, Jr. Robert H. Hall John R. Halleran Paul M. Hamburger Roy A. Hammer David R. Harbarger John G. Harkins, Jr. Morris Harrell Joel B. Harris G. Hughel Harrison William J. Hacte James M. Hartman J. Madden Hatcher, Jr. Roger E. Haughey Donald M. Hawkins John R. Haworth Richard Haydock C. J. Head Hayden W. Head Douglass D. Hearne Robert A. Hefner Rex S. Heinke Robert E. Heizer, Jr. Bernard Hellring Bill Helm H. Parks Helms Robert Henigson William O. E Henry L. Luton Henson Robert B. Hiden, Jr. Earl M. Hill Lee Hills Haywood H. Hillyer, Jr. Herbert H. Hirschhorn Robert B. Hocutt Arthur C. Hodgson Jon Hoffheimer Gene M. Hoffman Claude H. Hogan Morton J. Holbrook Dallas Holmes John Holmstrom, Jr. Amos A. Holter Charles I. Hopkins, Jr. William W. Hoppin Douglas G. Houser Harris S. Howard J. Woodford Howard Edwin E. Huddleson, Jr. Harry W. Hultgren, Jr. TITX 0022320
Page 47: jps32f00
George H. Hunker. Jr. Ernest C. Hurst Frank W. Hustace, Jr. Joseph C. Hutcheson, III James R. Hutter Barton L. Ingraham Richard G. Ison Elmer J. Jackson Edwin J. Jacob Mark M. Jaffe Eric M. Javits James R. Jenkins John A. Jenkins W. Edgar Jessup, Jr. Robert Mclean Jeter Walter F Johnsey Daniel E. Johnson Hubert D. Johnson Joseph B. Johnson John C. Johnston, Jr. Albert P. Jones E. Stewart Jones Hugh R. Jones Lillian W. Jones Nathaniel R. Jones Warren L. Jones Robert L. Jones, IlI E. Stewart Jones, Jr. Bernice Jonson Conrad J. Kalbfleisch David S. Kane Deborah Kanter Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr. Bruce W. Kauffman Edward W. Keane Thomas E. Keane John J. Kelley John S. Kellogg Martin Kellogg, Jr. Joseph W. Kennedy Charles G. Kepler Charles T. Kessler James J. Kilpatrick Victor R. King Earl W. Kintner Harry H. Kirby Francis R. Kirkham F. Philip Kirwan Rodney O. Kittelsen Franklin W. Klein William E. Knepper Cliff Knowles Charles W. Knowlton Sara H. Kramer Alex Kraut Louis P. Labbe Jacob S. Landry A. H. Lane John S. Langford, Jr. Duane Lansverk George V. Lanza Sheldon S. Larson Edward L. Lascher Moses Lasky James L. Latchum Richard A. Lavine William B. Lawless Thomas T. Lawson Donald P. Lay Raymond La Placa William J. Le boux Richard J. Learson James B. Lee Louis G. Lemle Hiram H. Lesar William R. Levasseur Clyde A. Lewis Ogden N. Lewis Woodrow Lewis Stephen F. Lichtenstein Lawrence B. Lindemer Susan B. Lindenauer Andrew R. Linscott Robert J. Lipshutz Byrne Litschgi Allan N. Littman Pierce Lively Lloyd Lochridge R. S. Lombard Beverly Glenn Long Caleb Loring, Jr. John B. Lounibos Laurence D. Lovett Alan V. Lowenstein John M. Luttrell James P. Lynch, Jr. Arch MacDonald Hugh L. MacNeil Phillip S. Makin Joseph J. Malizia Calvin N. Manis John B. Menn Gilbert S. Merritt Herbert L. Meschke James H. Milam A. Montague Miller Percy K. Mirikitani Alan S. Mirman David M. Miro Guy Mitchell, III Donald W. Molloy Malcolm W. Monroe Ralph E. Moody Charles R. Moon John B. Morgan John H. Morgan Robert D. Morgan Earl F. Morris Joseph W. Morris Chester A. Morrison John H. Morrison Walton S. Morrison Jean A. Mortland David H, Morton Paul A. Mueller, Jr. Institutes for nominating commissioners and college faculty AJS continues to help judicial nominating commissioners pre- pare for their tasks with a one-day program of slide presentations, videotapes of actual interviews by nominating commissioners, and discussion groups. This past year, institutes were held in Wyoming, Hawaii, Nebraska and Utah, with a special program tailored to the selection of federal bankruptcy judges presented to a meeting of the federal circuit executives. The Society's Summer Institute for Teachers of American Government held its third annual session this year in Chicago, bringing together 15 college teachers for an intensive three-week course from scholars who specalize in the justice system. The program is designed to help professors increase their knowledge of the Third Branch so their students will receive a more complete understanding of the American governmental system. Sam H. Mann, Jr. George S. Marinos Albert B. Maris T O. Marshall Jack R. Martin Watt Nicholas Martin John W. Martin, Jr. Stanley H. Matheny Leroy H. Mattson Katherine A. Mazzaferri James A. McCafferty Russell McCaughan A. G. McClintock Edward J. McCormack, Jr. Mary Ann McCoy E. Windell McCrackin Everett S. McCrum Robert E. McFarland Rex A. McKittrick David M. McLean Harley J. McNeal Leo Melamed Cloyd R. Mellott Leon Meltzer M. Wayne Munday W. D. Murray Norman H. Nachman Roland Nachman, Jr. Terry Nafisi Paul A. Nalty Florence B. Nash Robert D. Nelon Edwin N. Ness Dawn Clark Netsch Frederick C. Newman A. John Nicholson Edward J. Niland Joseph M. Nolan R. C. Norris Gary Norton David W. O' Brien Lawrence S. Okinaga James R. Olson Lafel E. Oman Andrea Sheridan Ordin Jeanne Owen Jack G. Paden Hubert B. Pair Anthony R. Palermo Robert L. Palmer Philip I. Palmer, Jr. Addison M. Parker Francis I. Parker Robert L. Parks Norman K. Parsells R. W. Payne, Jr. John D. Peacock Rose N. Perotti B. T Perrine Edwin H. Perry Harold H. Pfahl Donald E. Phillipson Gabriel F. Piemonte Jerome M. Polaha Franklin A. Polk Milton Pollack Julius R. Pollatschek Humbert D. Ponce De Leon Robert C. Poole William Poole H Wallace Pope, Jr. David S. Porter Ray L. Potter Jerome Powell Kenneth E. Prather L. Norton Preddy James D. Pruett Thomas M. Reavley L. Drew Redden H. E. Reily Don H. Reuben W. Glasgow Reynolds William T. Richert Richard E. Richman Louis J. Richman, Jr. John W. Riely Dorothy Comstock Riley Robert D. Risch Vernon Earl Robbins Randall L. Roberts Michael J. Rooney Sylvan L. Rosen Edward Rothschild Gilford G. Rowland Florence R. Rubin Isaac Rubin Rose Luttan Rubin Gerald E. Rudman Harold L. Russell Robert G. Russell - Albert F. Sabo Lowell E. Sachnoff Sidney S. Sachs J. Quint Salmon M. Louis Salmon Philip Salny Leo S. Samuels William Fred Santiago William A. Sawtell, Jr. Harold Schafer Milton J. Schubin C. Frederick Schutte John L. Schwabe Tom Sealy Irving R. Segal W. Edward Sell Harton S. Semple Anita Rae Shapiro Robert W. Sharp Edward J. Shea Perry J. Shertz Shirley A. Shideler William W. Shinn Robert L. Shipper James M. Sibley TITX 0022321
Page 48: jps32f00
Batson v. Kentucky and Turner v. Murray. A more important shortcoming is that both of these books-and most of the psychological research on juries-focus almost exclusively on criminal juries. While many of the psychological prin- ciples underlying criminal jury judg- ments can be generalized to j uries in civil Noteworthy ln an effort to keep readers abreast of cur- rent thinking on court topics, Judicature publishes, from time to time, an anno- tated listing of recent books and articles. Kalman, Legal Realism at Yale, 1927- 19gp, (Chapel Hill, NC, University of North Carolina Press, 1986, $35). Legal realism, Yale's answer to the Harvard case method, could have radically changed legal education, Kalman, an associate professor of history at the Uni- versity of California, Santa Barbara, con- tends, but it failed to do so, partially because of the conservatism of the Yale adtninistration. "Thinking like a law- yer" thus still rules law school curricula, and representation of the wealthy still rules the legal system, in her view. Sanctions: Rule 11 and Other Powers, (Chicago, American Bar Association Sec- pon of Litigation, 1986, $24). Devoting a chapter to each circuit, Sanctions exam- inesreported and unreported circuit and district court decisions under Rules 11 and 37 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Includes advice on avoiding sanctions. Wasserman and O'Brien, eds., Law and Legal Information Directory, Fourth Edi- don, (Detroit, Gale Research, Co., 1986, f280). A source book, with new chapters on lawyer referral services, legal aid offi- ces, public defender offices, and legisla- tive manuals and registers. The publisher claims the new edition has 45 per cent more entries than the 1984 version. Craver, Effective Legal Negotiation mdSettlement, (Charlottesville, VA, The Richie Co., 1986, $35). Another entry in the how•to-negotiate sweepstakes. Pro- (aaor Charles B. Craver takes the tradi- aottal tack that there is a "winner" and a 10er" in negotiated settlements. Tac- aa to make you a winner are offered. Kressel, How Couples and Profes- ep0sh Negotiate Divorce Settlements, Ole* York, Basic Books, 1985, $23.95). trials, there are reasons to expect some important differences. Civil juries oper- ate under a different standard of proof, often encounter evidence that is highly technical, and must occasionally resolve disputes involving large organizations rather than individuals. And we still know very little about the dynamics Kressel, a psychologist, describes and eval- uates the roles played by therapists, law- yers and mediators in bringing a marriage to an end. He finds that go-for-the-jugu- lar "advocates" turn out to be just as suc- cessful as kindly "counselors" in bring- ing about a peaceful end to hostilities. University of Chicago Law Review, (Symposium on Litigation Management, Spring 1986, $7). This fat volume fea- tures articles by such heavyweights in the field of litigation management as Wayne D. Brazil, Judith Resnik, Jethro K. Lieberman and James F. Henry, and United States Court of Appeals Judge Richard A. Posner, to name a few. Sub- jects range from the judges' role in the Agent Orange litigation by Peter H. Schuck, author of a forthcoming book on that mass of tortious confusion, to the effect of managerial judging on proce- dure by E. Donald Elliott. A meaty issue. Clark, Judges and the Cities: Inter- preting Local Autonomy, (Chicago, Uni- versity of Chicago Press, 1985, $25). After examining four complex court disputes in considerable depth, this dense tome concludes that neither structural nor more conventional liberal theories of social discourse will quite do: social relations are so continually changing that they escape the grasp of any theory. The publisher says this book will inter- est "geographers, political scientists,, economists, sociologists and legal scho- lars," but none will find it an easy read. Green, Verdict According to Con- science: Perspectives on the English Criminal Trial Jury, 1200-1800, (Chi- cago, University of Chicago Press, 1985, $34). A fascinating historical study of jury nullification, which was the subject of a recent Public Broadcasting System documentary, this book has ambitions to provide a comprehensive look at the jury in the period studied. Being "compre- hensive" in the era of the computer data involved in the awarding of compensa- tory and punitive damages. I suspect that in the coming years the civil jury will engage the attention of both the legal and the scientific communities. 0 ROBERT J. MacCOUN is a postdoctoral re- search fellow in the Department of Psychol- ogy, Northwestern University. base is no mean trick, and to an extent Thomas Green, a history professor at the University of Michigan, succumbs to the temptation to get bogged down in a swamp of data. Nonetheless, the data is illuminating to those with an interest in jury history, and the presentation is rarely pedantic. Beer, Peacemaking in Your Neighbor- hood: Reflections on an Experiment in Community Mediation, (Philadelphia, New Society Publishers, 1986, $14.95). An outgrowth of a Philadelphia Society of Friends' project, this "reflection," de- liberately long on stories but short on analysis, concludes, somewhat ruefully, that although community mediation "can address certain kinds of inj ustice ... our society has already twisted that po- tential, bending the premise of volun- tary participation, using mediation to shunt off unwanted people with un- wanted troubles." "Must" reading for advocates of compulsory, professional- ized Alternative Dispute Resolution. Call for Papers Judicature is soliciting manuscripts for a symposium issue devoted to "The judicial power and the Constitution." Topics should address the relationship between the Constitution and the judi- cial system, with particular reference to Article III and Amendments IV VIII. More general topics such as judicial independence and judicial federalism would also be appropriate. Planned publication date is August-September, 1987. Manuscripts, of 20-25 pages, should be submitted by March 15, 1987 to David Richert, Editor, Judicature, 25 E. Washington, Suite 1600, Chicago, Illinois 60602. Authors will be notified of the review- ers' decision by May 1. TITX 0022310 173
Page 49: jps32f00
James R. Olson Andrea Sheridan Ordin Revius O. Ortique, Jr. Ben F. Overton Jeanne Owen Jack G.Paden Hubert B. Pair Anthony R. Palermo Francis I. Parker Robert L. Parks R. W. Payne, Jr. John D. Peacock Rose N. Perotti B. T Perrine Edwin H. Perry Harold H. Pfahl Gabriel F. Piemonte John C. Pinkerton Cass Piotrowski Franklin A. Polk Milton Pollack Julius R. Pollatschek Humbert D. Ponce DeLeon William Poole Maury B. Poscover Ray L. Potter Jerome Powell Kenneth E. Prather L. Norton Preddy William T. Prince John G. Rauch, Jr. Robert D. Raven Henry T. Reath Thomas M. Reavley L. Drew Redden Otto L. Reinisch, III Don H.Reuben W. Glasgow Reynolds W. Ward Reynoldson William T Richert Richard E. Richman Dorothy Comstock Riley Vernon Earl Robbins Sylvan L. Rosen Maurice Rosenberg Victor G. Rosenblum Gerald E. Rudman Robert G. Russell Lowell E. Sachnoff M. Louis Salmon Leo S. Samuels William A. Sawtell, Jr. Gordon D. Schaber Harold Schafer Harold R. Schmidt C. Frederick Schutte John L. Schwabe Joel E. Schweitzer Tom Sealy W. Edward Sell Harton S. Semple Robert A. Shapiro Robert W. Sharp Edward J. Shea Perry J. Shertz Shirley A. Shideler William W. Shinn Robert L. Shipper Thomas J. Shumard James M. Sibley Antonio R. Sifre Bryan Simpson Robert S. Skinner George B. Smith John Kerwin Smith Kirk Smith Marvin H. Smith Augustine T Smythe Cubbedge Snow, Jr. William Arthur Snyder, Jr. A. A. Sommer, Jr. Neal R. Sonnett Jim W. Sowell Frank F. Spata Robert M. Spire Lawrence R. Springer Edward K. Stackler K. Paul Stahl, III Katherine M. Staley William L. Standish Robert A. Stein Edmund A. Stephan Nevin Stetler Harold A. Stevens Thomas B. Stewart Fred G. Stickel, III Sidney Stubbs, Jr. "Judges' social associa- tions and activities" was Northwestern Uni- versity law professor Steven Lubet's topic when he addressed the mid-year meeting of the board of directors in Baltimore. Gerard H. VanHoof Lawrence R. VanTil William A. Vanelli Harvey C. Varnum E. D. Vickery Robert Austin Vinyard T Donald Wade W. J. Walker Lawrence E. Walsh Richard P. Warfield Glenn R. Watson Alexander P. Waugh Robert L. Weinberg Charles I. Wellborn J. Ralston Werum John P. Wham Lish Whitson Alan Wicks Donna C. Willard John W. Winston Commenting on his speech were nationally syndicated columnist Roger Simon, New Jersey Advisory Committee on Judicial Con- duct counsel Patrick J. Monahan, Jr., and Florida Supreme Court Justice Ben F. Overton. At the annual meeting in New York, judge William J. Bauer of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit conducted a Socratic dialogue on "Judicial independence v judicial elections" among a panel of lawyers, judges, journalists and others. In the afternoon Lynn Hecht Schafran, Director of the National Judicial Education Program to Promote Equality for Women and Men in the Courts, discussed "Gender bias in the courts." Paul D. Sullivan Fred G. Suria, Jr. Stephen H. Suttle Edward M. Swartz Thomas P. Sweeney Clyde A. Szuch VG'illis M. Tate Henry J. N. Taub John J. Tebelius Wayne A. Tenenbaum Charles H. Tenney Bruce R. Thompson Jack W. Thomson Randolph W. Thrower Cleveland Thurber George B. Timmerman, Jr. Paul H. Titus Maynard J. Toll George N. Tompkins, Jr. Michael Traynor Everette Truly William E. Turnage Glenn R. Winters James R. Wolfe C. W. Womble Dick H. Woods Arthur M. Wright Terrell Wynn Robert B. Yegge Michael J. Yelovich Frank B. Zinn Other contributors Lynne Marsha Abraham Ernesto J. Acosta James C. Adams Robert F. Adams Carolyn E. Agger M. Bernard Aidinoff William David Aiken Alfred T. Airth Henry D. Akin J. M. Albritton Patricia H. Alexander Bruce F. Allen Francis H. Allen Frank D. Allen Ina D. Alt Paul B. Altermatt George D. Anderson James H. Anderson Jean R. Anderson Terence J. Anderson W. C. Anderson Harper Andrews Robert N. Andry George C. Anson Charles W. Antes Richard H. Appert Alan W. Applebee W. H. Arnold, III W. N. Arnold S. Samuel Arsht Norman Asher Vernon Asher C. Clyde Atkins William T. Atkins Joseph R. Austin Spurgeon Avakian Ralph E. Axley Howard W. Babcock Harold Baer Michael R. Baer C. C. Bailey Lee E. Bailey Robert Bailey, Jr. James J. Baker Kenneth Balcomb Vincent Curtis Baldwin W. LaVerne Baldwin Fletcher N. Baldwin, Jr. Conrad L. Ball W. Lewis Bambrick Frederick E. Bangs James M. Barker Thomas H. Barland Ben F. Barnes Eva Barnes James E. Barrett James M. Barrett Jane H. Barrett Roger S. Barrett Uhel O. Barrickman Kenneth P. Barrow Louis F. Bartelt, Jr. Clyde Barton Isadore Baskin Leonard D. Baskin James L. Bass Warren F. Bateman Cameron M. Batjer Anthony S. Battaglia William J. Baudler Harry H. Baulch Victor J. Baum F. Robert Bayle Leona Beane William M. Beaney Patrick Beary John C. Beatty, Jr. Leon Becker Bernard M. Beerman Carl W. Behner Iris Y. Bell Albert C. Bellas Leo E. Benade Le Roy Bendheim Mark L. Bennett Robert S. Bennett TjTx 0022324
Page 50: jps32f00
Christine M. Durham Bert H. Early John C. Elam Burdette W. Erickson Haliburton Fales, II C. Sims Farr Albert E. Fey Joseph J. Fine Sewall S. Fine Robert V. Fink Leon Finley Robert B. Fiske, Jr. Morgan L. Fitch, Jr. Duane D. Fitzgerald Rosalie FitzPatrick Macklin Fleming Leon S. Forman Henry H. Fox Paul A. Freund Jerome L. Froimson Robert V. Fullerton Royal Furgeson, Jr. Samuel C. Gainsburgh Fournier J. Gale, III Ronald H. Galowich Robert T. Gannett Richard O. Gantz M. Leon Garmon, Jr. John J. Gartland, Jr. James E. Garvey William L. Garwood Georgia Chapter of AJS Raymond I. Geraidson John S. Gilman D. Wayne Gittinger Gordon M. Glier, Sr. John E. Golden John Wood Goldsack Emanuel H. Gottesman Charles P. Gould Hardy Moore Graham John Davis Gray Fred D. Green Joyce Hens Green Patrick A. Green John E. Greenbacker Ralph H. Greil Frederick P. Greiner W. A. Groening, Jr. Jack Gross Clarence A. Guittard Charles T Hagan, Jr. John R. Halleran Paul M. Hamburger John G. Harkins, Jr. William J. Harte James M. Hartman Albert C. Harvey J. Madden Hatcher, Jr. John L. Hauer Roger E. Haughey TJcnald M. Hawkins John R. Haworth Richard Haydock Jean R. Haynes Thomas B. Haynes Clement F. Haynsworth, Jr. C. J. Head Hayden W. Head Douglass D. Hearne Robert A. Hefner Rex S. Heinke Bill Helm Robert Henigson William O. E. Henry L. Luton Henson Robert O. Hetlage Robert B. Hiden, Jr. Edgar D. Hieronymus Earl M. Hill Lee Hills Haywood H. Hillyer, Jr. Jon Hoffheimer Gene M. Hoffman Harold W. Hofman, Jr. William L. Hoisington Morton J. Holbrook Dallas Holmes Charles I. Hopkins, Jr. William W. Hoppin Harris S. Howard Harry W. Hultgren, Jr. George H. Hunker, Jr. Frank W. Hustace, Jr. James R. Hutter R. William Ide, III Barton L. Ingraham Donald L. Jackson Elmer J. Jackson Staff activities Bruce W. Kauffman Julia A. Kaufmann Judith S. Kaye Edward W. Keane Thomas E. Keane John J. Kelley Joseph W. Kennedy Ann Loughridge Kerr William L. Kervick Charles T Kessler Gladys Kessler James J. Kilpatrick Irwin I. Kimmelman Victor R. King Norman V. Kinsey F. Philip Kirwan Rodney O. Kittelsen Franklin W. Klein William E. Knepper Richard F Knight Charles W. Knowlton Theodore I. Koskoff AJS staff members are frequently called upon by other organi- zations in the field of court improvement to share their expertise through speaking engagements, conference panels, and advisory boards. Among last year's activities were addresses by Frances K. Zemans, Assistant Executive Director for Programs, to the South- west Association of Pre-Law Advisors in Dallas, by Staff Asso- ciate Mark Lyon to the Western Judicial Conference sponsored by the National Center for State Courts, and by Jeffrey Shaman, Director of the Center for Judicial Conduct Organizations, to the Mississippi Judicial College in Jackson and to the Council of Chief Judges of Courts of Appeals in New Orleans. Zemans served on a panel evaluating court performance at the Conference on Judicial Administration Research and was also a panelist at the Law and Society Association's annual meeting in Chicago. She was appointed to a committee of the American Political Science Association to select a prize-winning dissertation in the area of public law, and was named to the editorial board of the Justice System Journma.l. Judicature Editor David Richert was named a non-lawyer member of the Illinois State Bar Associa- tion's Civil Practice and Procedure Section Council. Mark M. Jaffe W. J. Jameson Eric M. Javits James R. Jenkins W. Edgar Jessup, Jr. Walter F. Johnsey Daniel E. Johnson Hubert D. Johnson Joseph B. Johnson Norma Holloway Johnson Thomas J. Johnson Albert P. Jones E. Stewart Jones Nathaniel R. Jones Warren L. Jones E. Stewart Jones, Jr. Bernice Jonson Robert E. Juceam Conrad J. Kalbfleisch David S. Kane Ralph L. Kaskell, Jr. R. Arnold Kramer Sara H. Kramer Alex Kraut John A. Krsul, Jr. Louis P. Labbe A. H. Lane George V. Lanza Moses Lasky Noel V. Lateef Richard A. Lavine Harry O. Lawson Thomas T. Lawson James B. Lee John R. Lenahan, Sr. Hiram H. Lesar A. Leo Levin Clyde A. Lewis Dean S. Lewis Ogden N. Lewis Woodrow Lewis Stephen F. Lichtenstein Lawrence B. Lindemer George N. Lindsay Robert J. Lipshutz Byrne Litschgi Allan N. Littman R. S. Lombard Lucile Lomen Beverly Glenn Long Caleb Loring, Jr. John B. Lounibos H. Malcolm Lovett Robert S. Lowe John M. Luttrell James P. Lynch, Jr. Robert MacCrate Phillip S. Makin Joseph J. Malizia Calvin N. Manis Noel E. Manoukian William C. Marlatt, Jr. E. G. Marshall T O. Marshall Jack R. Martin Watt Nicholas Martin John W. Martin, Jr. Stanley H. Matheny Leroy H. Mattson James A. McCafferty Russell McCaughan A. G. McClintock Edward J. McCormack, Jr. Walter T. McGough Robert B. McKay Rex A. McKittrick David M. McLean William F. McNagny Robert E. McNair Harley J. McNeal Hamilton Eugene McRae Daniel J. Meador John B. Menn Gilbert S. Merritt Robert W. Meserve Clifford L. Michel fames H. Milam A. Montague Miller Richard S. Milstein Percy K. Mirikitani Alan S. Mirman David M. Miro Donald W. Molloy Ralph E. Moody Charles R. Moon John B. Morgan Robert D. Morgan Joseph W. Morris Chester A. Morrison John H. Morrison M. Peter Moser Diana E. Murphy Florence K. Murray W. D. Murray Norman H. Nachman Terry Nafisi Paul A. Nalry Dorothy W. Nelson Edwin N. Ness Dawn Clark Netsch John L. Newburn Frederick C. Newman A. John Nicholson Edward J. Niland James H. Norris, Jr. R. C. Norris Gary Norton Douglas O'Brien Arden J. Olson TITX 0022323

Text Control

Highlight Text:

OCR Text Alignment:

Image Control

Image Rotation:

Image Size: