Impartial Justice

The Real Supreme Court Cases that Define the Constitutional Right to a Neutral and Detached Decisionmaker

By (author) Eric T. Kasper

Publication date:

22 March 2013

Length of book:

232 pages

Publisher

Lexington Books

ISBN-13: 9780739177211

This book examines the right to a neutral and detached decisionmaker as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. This right resides in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees to procedural due process and in the Sixth Amendment’s promise of an impartial jury. Supreme Court cases on these topics are the vehicles to understand how these constitutional rights have come alive. First, the book surveys the right to an impartial jury in criminal cases by telling the stories of defendants whose convictions were overturned after they were the victims of prejudicial pretrial publicity, mob justice, and discriminatory jury selection. Next, the book articulates how our modern notion of judicial impartiality was forged by the Court striking down cases where judges were bribed, where they had other direct financial stakes in the outcome of the case, and where a judge decided the case of a major campaign supporter. Finally, the book traces the development of the right to a neutral decisionmaker in quasi-judicial, non-court settings, including cases involving parole revocation, medical license review, mental health commitments, prison discipline, and enemy combatants. Each chapter begins with the typically shocking facts of these cases being retold, and each chapter ends with a critical examination of the Supreme Court’s ultimate decisions in these cases.

Acknowledgements
Preface
Introduction: A Short History of What It Means to Be a Neutral, Impartial, and Unbiased Decisionmaker

Part One: An Impartial Jury Trial in Criminal Cases
1. Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)
2. Avoiding Mob Justice: Frank v. Mangum (1915) and Moore v. Dempsey (1923)
3. Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)
4. Sex Discrimination in Jury Selection: Hoyt v. Florida (1961) and Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)
5. Death-Qualified Juries: Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) and Lockhart v. McCree (1986)

Part Two: Due Process and the Right to an Impartial Judge
6. Mayor-Judges with a Financial Stake in the Outcome: Tumey v. Ohio (1927) and Ward v. Village of Monroeville (1972)
7. A Judge Hearing a Contempt Proceeding after Being Vilified by the Defendant: Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (1971)
8. Non-Lawyer Judges: North v. Russell (1976)
9. The Judge Who Was Bribed in Other Cases: Bracy v. Gramley (1997)
10. A Judge Deciding a Case Involving a Major Campaign Supporter: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009)

Part Three: Due Process and the Right to an Impartial
Decisionmaker in Quasi-Judicial, Non-Court Settings

11. Parole Revocation: Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)
12. Medical License Review: Withrow v. Larkin (1975)
13. Mental Health Commitments for Juveniles: Parham v. J.R. (1979)
14. Prison Discipline: Edwards v. Balisok (1997)
15. Enemy Combatant Cases: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)

Conclusions
Catalog of Cases
Bibliography
Index

The word "disinterested" has multiple meanings. Although "apathetic" or "unenthusiastic" may be the first definitions that come to mind, in a juridical context the notion of "disinterest" is positive, a guarantee that the decision maker in a dispute is unbiased and not slanting rulings or playing favorites. Without this virtuous form of disinterest, a truly just system of dispute resolution is not possible. Kasper, who also serves as a municipal judge, has written a multifaceted study of the various settings in which impartiality is a core value in Anglo-American law. After a brief introduction tracking the evolution of impartiality from the 1215 adoption of the Magna Carta, Kasper explores the concept of unbiased decision making by juries, judges, and quasi-judicial actors or bodies. The next 13 chapters are organized as examinations of forums for impartiality--some examples are "death-qualified" juries, judges with financial stakes in the outcomes of cases, and medical license reviews--each viewed through the prism of a specific US Supreme Court decision. Kasper's accounts of the cases avoid jargon and are thus highly readable as well as interesting and informative. Summing Up: Recommended. All readership levels.