A review of the work of the New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct chronicles the costs of a tradition resistant to change.
As drug courts spread across the world, new standards and best practices aim to hold them all accountable.
A new report collates some of the latest numbers on how American courts use brain science in trials. We've got the skinny, plus an analysis of the good and bad consequences.
A conservative interest group is becoming increasingly effective at picking and grooming the sorts of judges it likes.
Stories from the 25th anniversary celebration of the nation’s first drug court.
Jurors experiencing “moral outrage” will be more likely to convict, and changes in technology are making this a bigger factor.
A Center for Public Integrity investigation argues for better rules on judicial conflicts of interest.
Ordering in the court may be the new cry as a look at judges' decisions made before and after lunch shows a wide difference in outcome.
Analysis: As the nebulous concept of 'judicial activism' swirls around the Sotomayor confirmation hearings, political scientist James L. Gibson examines what Americans think is in the fog.
Miller-McCune's experts offer solutions to problems that were under-discussed during the presidential campaign.
Spate of disciplinary cases unlikely to erode federal judiciary's prerogative to judge itself.
There's a problem with problem-solving courts: Taxpayers don't understand how well they work.
Why letting judges speak out during political campaigns enhances democracy and serves justice.