Judicial Misconduct

Explore a comprehensive collection of resources related to judicial misconduct, including in-depth articles, video interviews with legal experts, and detailed legal glossary definitions. Visitors will find insightful discussions on the implications of unethical behavior by judges, landmark cases, and the processes for reporting and addressing judicial violations. Stay informed about the critical issues surrounding judicial integrity and accountability in the legal system.

33 posts

Malicious Prosecution: Legal Recourse for Wrongful Charges

December 26, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Malicious prosecution claims let you sue for damages when someone initiates criminal or civil proceedings against you without probable cause and with malice, and the case ends in your favor. These lawsuits can recover losses such as legal fees, lost income, reputational harm, and emotional distress, but they require specific proof and are often time-limited. […]

Constitutional Law Criminal Defense Strategies

Retroactive Laws: When New Rules Apply to Past Crimes

December 26, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Retroactive criminal laws are generally unconstitutional in the U.S. under the Constitution’s Ex Post Facto Clauses, which prohibit new laws that increase punishment or criminalize past conduct. However, retroactivity questions still arise through court rulings, procedural changes, sentencing amendments, and civil or regulatory schemes that may affect prior acts. This article explains what counts as […]

Constitutional Law Criminal Defense Strategies

Diminished Capacity Defense: Partial Responsibility for Crimes

December 25, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

The diminished capacity defense can reduce a charge by showing a defendant lacked the specific intent required for the offense due to a mental impairment. It is not the same as insanity and typically applies only to specific-intent crimes, depending on state law and admissible expert evidence. This article explains how it works, when it […]

Administrative Law Civil Law

Factors Courts Consider in Arbitrary and Capricious Decisions

December 24, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Courts commonly assess 5 core factors under the arbitrary and capricious standard: reasoned explanation, consideration of relevant factors, evidentiary support, consistency with prior policy, and legal compliance. If an agency ignored key evidence or failed to explain its choice, courts may set the action aside under the APA. This article outlines each factor and how […]

Constitutional Law Criminal Law

Mandatory Minimum Sentences: Navigating Strict Penalties

December 20, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Mandatory minimum sentences impose fixed prison terms for specific crimes, often preventing judges from reducing penalties below the statutory floor. These laws can sharply increase incarceration exposure based on the charge, drug quantity, or use of a firearm, making early defense strategy critical. This article explains how mandatory minimums work, common triggers and exceptions, and […]

Administrative Law Constitutional Law

How does the arbitrary and capricious standard differ from other standards of review?

December 19, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

The arbitrary and capricious standard is a deferential review that upholds an agency decision unless it lacks a rational basis in the record or ignores key facts. Unlike de novo or substantial evidence review, courts do not reweigh evidence and instead look for reasoned decision-making. This article compares it to other standards and explains when […]

Civil Rights Constitutional Law

Habeas Corpus: Challenging Unlawful Detention

December 18, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

A habeas corpus petition asks a court to review whether a person’s detention is lawful and can result in release, a new hearing, or other relief. It’s a constitutional safeguard against arbitrary imprisonment and is commonly used after conviction or during custody challenges in state and federal courts. This article explains what habeas corpus is, […]

Constitutional Law Criminal Law

Grand Jury Process: What Happens Behind Closed Doors

December 12, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

A grand jury typically has 16–23 citizens who hear evidence in secret and vote on whether probable cause supports an indictment. Prosecutors present witnesses and documents, while the target usually has limited participation and proceedings are sealed. This article explains the grand jury’s history, constitutional role, and step-by-step procedures from empanelment to indictment. The grand […]

Constitutional Law Criminal Law

Plea of Insanity: Legal Standards and Consequences

December 12, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

In the U.S., the plea of insanity is recognized in most states, but 4 states have abolished it. Standards vary (e.g., M'Naghten or MPC), and a successful plea usually results in commitment to a mental health facility rather than prison. This article covers legal tests, burdens of proof, verdict outcomes, and post-verdict consequences. The insanity […]

Administrative Law Civil Law Explained

What factors do judges consider when assessing arbitrary and capricious decisions?

November 10, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Judges assess whether an agency’s decision was “arbitrary and capricious” by asking if it reasonably explained its action and connected the facts in the record to its conclusion. Under the APA, a court will set aside action that lacks a rational basis, ignores important aspects of the problem, or conflicts with the evidence before the […]

Administrative Law Civil Litigation

How does the arbitrary and capricious standard compare to other legal standards of review?

October 31, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

Arbitrary-and-capricious review is highly deferential: courts uphold an agency if it examined relevant factors and reasonably explained its choice, even if judges might decide differently. It is generally less searching than de novo review and often more flexible than substantial-evidence review, while overlapping with abuse-of-discretion principles. This article contrasts these standards and explains when each […]

Administrative Law Civil Litigation

What evidence is necessary to prove an agency’s decision is arbitrary and capricious?

October 31, 2024 • By Jack Gilbert

To prove an agency decision is arbitrary and capricious, you generally need record-based evidence showing the agency ignored key facts, failed to consider important aspects of the problem, offered an explanation contrary to the evidence, or departed from policy without a reasoned basis. This showing is typically made from the administrative record under the APA’s […]

← Previous 1 2 3 Next →