Justice Begins Before Trial: How to Nudge Inaccurate Pre-Trial Rulings Using Behavioral Law and Economic Theory and Uniform Commercial Laws

44 Pages Posted: 24 Apr 2018 Last revised: 7 Aug 2019

See all articles by Michael Gentithes

Michael Gentithes

University of Akron School of Law; Chicago-Kent College of Law - Illinois Institute of Technology; New York University School of Law; Loyola University Chicago School of Law

Date Written: April 4, 2018

Abstract

Injustice in criminal cases often takes root before trial begins. Overworked criminal judges must resolve difficult pre-trial evidentiary issues that determine the charges the State will take to trial and the range of sentences the defendant will face. Wrong decisions on these issues often lead to wrongful convictions. But as behavioral law and economic theory suggests, judges who are cognitively busy and receive little feedback on these topics from appellate courts rely upon intuition, rather than deliberative reasoning, to resolve these questions. This leads to inconsistent rulings, which prosecutors exploit to expand the scope of evidentiary exceptions that almost always disfavor defendants. Such intuitive, inconsistent decision-making thereby undermines criminal justice before trial even starts.

In this Article, I argue that criminal judges can rely on an alternative model to decide an especially vexing pre-trial evidentiary issue—the admissibility of a co-conspirator’s hearsay statement at the defendant’s trial. Judges can look to principles in uniform commercial laws to resolve this issue in a more deliberative fashion. Uniform commercial laws predictably, accurately, and simply allocate individual liability for the actions of opaque, profit-driven commercial organizations. Those laws can likewise allocate individual liability amongst members of analogous conspiratorial organizations. Because those laws are also reducible to decision trees and checklists that encourage deliberative reasoning while still generating relatively fast decisions, judges can rely upon them to produce fair results without bringing their dockets to a standstill.

I provide several examples in which illicit organizations are sufficiently analogous to commercial organizations for judges to apply uniform commercial laws when resolving co-conspirator hearsay issues. When judges do so, they will check the growth of anti-defendant evidentiary exceptions. Critically, they will also increase the likelihood of just outcomes in criminal cases once the trial begins.

Keywords: Criminal Law, Evidence, Criminal Procedure, Jurisprudence, Judges, Law & Behavioral Economics

Suggested Citation

Gentithes, Michael, Justice Begins Before Trial: How to Nudge Inaccurate Pre-Trial Rulings Using Behavioral Law and Economic Theory and Uniform Commercial Laws (April 4, 2018). 60 WILLIAM & MARY L. REV. 2185 (2019) , Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3156605

Michael Gentithes (Contact Author)

University of Akron School of Law ( email )

150 University Ave.
Akron, OH 44325-2901
United States

Chicago-Kent College of Law - Illinois Institute of Technology ( email )

565 W. Adams St.
Chicago, IL 60661-3691
United States

New York University School of Law ( email )

40 Washington Square South
New York, NY 10012-1099
United States

Loyola University Chicago School of Law ( email )

25 E Pearson St.
Room 1041
Chicago, IL 60611
United States

Here is the Coronavirus
related research on SSRN

Paper statistics

Downloads
36
Abstract Views
478
PlumX Metrics