Perspectives Matter’s Post

Check out my newest opinion piece!

1/Title: “The Machinations of Evidence in New Zealand Court Cases: Analyzing Racial Bias, Magnetic Transmission Forces, and the Jeopardy of Collectivism” The Science of Magnetic Transmission Forces and Human Trust Magnetic Transmission and Human Interaction Magnetic transmission forces, as understood in physics, involve the transmission of energy through magnetic fields, which can influence the behavior of particles and objects. In a metaphorical sense, these principles can be applied to human trust and interaction. Trust can be seen as a “magnetic force” that binds communities together, creating fields of influence that can either support or undermine collective behavior. Trust and the Manipulation of Evidence In the context of legal proceedings, trust plays a crucial role. The manipulation of evidence can be likened to the distortion of magnetic fields, where the natural alignment of truth and justice is disrupted by external forces, such as racial bias or collective prejudice. This disruption can erode trust within the justice system, particularly among brown communities who may feel that the system is inherently biased against them. The Role of Collectivism and Its Jeopardy Collectivism in Brown Communities Collectivism, or the emphasis on group cohesion and collective well-being, is a core value in many brown communities, including Māori and Pasifika populations in New Zealand. This cultural orientation can clash with the individualistic approach often favored in Western legal systems. When the majority community manipulates evidence against brown individuals, it not only jeopardizes the lives of those directly involved but also undermines the collective trust and solidarity of the entire community. Jeopardy and Legal Outcomes The jeopardy faced by brown people in New Zealand’s legal system is multifaceted. It includes the risk of wrongful convictions, the erosion of community trust in legal institutions, and the perpetuation of systemic racism. The manipulation of evidence by the majority white community not only affects the immediate legal outcomes but also has long-term consequences for the social and psychological well-being of brown communities. Dishonest NewZealand White Race ,Peter Thompson and Philip Joulian Cavanagh Barfoot&thompson NewZealand

Thrilled to share this final report on the Access to Justice Lab's collaboration with George Naufal and his team at Texas A&M University Public Policy Research Institute studying the effect of Counsel at First Appearance in two jurisdictions in Texas.   https://lnkd.in/epvKNP-i   Counsel appeared on behalf of the accused at the first bail hearing. Despite the fact that individuals are incarcerated pre-trial at this stage, and this hearing may determine whether they are released, it is not considered a critical stage of the case such that Gideon, and its progeny, apply (yet!). So, without this intervention, there is no right to counsel status quo.   When counsel was present, bond amounts lowered and the likelihood of release on recognizance increased. But, with that came an increase in non-monetary release conditions, which sometimes are more difficult for individuals to meet and may suggest a level of discomfort on the part of the court for release.   Another interesting detail: while the counsel in this study did not continue the representation after the bail hearing and only provided this limited-scope representation, requests for indigent defense increased during the study period. It could be that counsel better explained that process. It could be that delivering the message that counsel is available is more trusted coming from someone fighting for your rights than from another justice system actor. It's worth a closer look.   We are happy to contribute to a robust line of scholarship on this topic!

Prof. Emeritus Gary Maveal's article, "Discovering Michigan's American Rule," will be published in the Michigan Historical Review in the Spring of 2025. The so-called "American Rule" requires that parties bear their own attorney fees in civil cases unless a statute authorizes shifting them to the loser. This article traces the history of Michigan's first fee-shifting acts from 1805-1841 that conformed to English tradition of awarding fees to all winners. These unusual statutes have never been cited by Michigan courts or examined elsewhere. The article documents how they applied during our long Territorial period and first years of statehood and examines the reasons for their repeal. It also details how their broad fee-shifting approach was later replaced by statutes authorizing fee awards for only specified claims, leaving most prevailing parties to bear their own attorney fees.

In the landscape of contemporary justice delivery systems, approachability to the court is important facet of democracy as the barriers hinder the quest for true equity and fairness. As the closed door court proceedings, raises critical questions about the integrity of the justice system, the foundations of democracy, and the faith that citizens place in legal institutions to deliver justice, timely, delivery of justice is equally important as open court proceedings, as non-delivery of justice on time is inherently paradoxical in a democratic society that espouses the rule of law. Court often symbolizes a broader struggle against authoritarianism and the silencing of dissent. The court becomes a microcosm of societal power dynamics, where the hopes of the disenfranchised clash with the cold realities of legal machinations. To explore this theme is to navigate through the emotional currents of those awaiting justice - victims, their families, and advocates who place their faith in a system designed to protect their rights. The hope for justice in a democratic society is deeply intertwined with the belief that courts should be accessible, transparent and prompt, when this door opens, it signifies not only the opportunity for individuals to seek redress but also the societal commitment to uphold the rule of law. However, with that commitment to uphold the rule of law, the court is battling for timely delivery of justice as its system is clogged with huge pendency and citizens have to wait for justice for years which puts the “court on trial” and the Citizens inevitably become jurors, not merely in legal proceedings of influentials and privileged but in the court of public opinion, assessing the legitimacy of a system that often seems to favor the privileged.

As a relatively new advocate for civil access to justice, I've participated in a dizzying array of conversations at gatherings and convenings on civil access to justice over the last 5 years. Some conversations reveal a divide beyond the access to justice gap. Right and left political views considerably impact the debate over access to justice. I see similar polarization in research institutions and policy advocacy groups, where ideological silos drive justice strategies. All advocates I've met believe that access to justice is critical for fair legal representation, equitable judicial treatment, and citizens' ability to seek legal protection and remedy. This includes concerns about the affordability of legal services, the efficiency of legal proceedings, and removing barriers for underprivileged people. However, the ideological division I see among advocates of civil justice reform of different partisan backgrounds leads to differing perspectives on the origins of barriers and potential solutions. These views are not always diametrically opposed, but from my experience, the division results in a fragmented approach to resolving civil access to justice issues (as with everything else that becomes a casualty of politics). How do we reconcile these diverse ideas to agree on necessary reforms? I have no special solutions presently for resolving the difficulties of human nature; I am simply sharing what I see. Improving access to justice requires a willingness to establish common ground and develop collaborative ways for addressing complicated situations. It entails prioritizing community needs above individual differences. Otherwise, we imitate the obstructive behavior we criticize in some professional gatekeepers who impede access to justice. It shouldn't matter whether reasonable solutions are aligned with Fed Soc or Brennan (examples only). If we cannot entertain an idea for improving access to justice solely because it comes from someone or some entity on the other side of the political spectrum, we are part of the problem. If both sides of the political spectrum cannot overcome their biases and work together for the greater good, we will create missed opportunities for collaboration and problem-solving. We must lead by example. 

Terrific synthesis of the fruitful discussions at this important A2J conference, which I had the pleasure of participating in, along with many distinguished thought and action leaders. The report is well worth reading!

Attention University of St. Thomas School of Law Alumni - today is the 10th annual Tommie Give Day. Join me in supporting the St. Thomas Law community. Follow this link to learn more about the Give Day and the related incentives for giving! https://lnkd.in/gVVNZ-aN

Do you feel overwhelmed trying to keep up with all the misdeeds, allegations, provocations and outrages swirling around Ryan Walters? You're not alone! To help folks keep track, OK Appleseed has compiled a comprehensive inventory of all his controversies, complete with summaries and links to news stories and primary documents. This is intended as a resource for all citizens and education advocates in particular - please check it out and share! https://lnkd.in/gTANd5UM