In the third episode in our series on autonomous vehicles, Judge Fowler and Judge Williams-Byers analyze how advancements in vehicle technology could impact impaired driving cases. When do drivers have actual physical control over autonomous vehicles and what impact will a law's use of the word operating versus driving impact a case? Tune in to fin…

This episode of Come to Order continues the discussion on autonomous vehicles, focusing on level 4 and level 5 vehicles. The judges discuss the future of passenger vehicles at this level as well as commercial level 4 vehicles that are on the road today.By The National Judicial College

The first of a four-part series on autonomous vehicles, this episode introduces judges to levels 0-2 vehicles in the autonomous vehicle taxonomy and discusses emerging legal issues starting to appear in courtrooms. Level 1 and Level 2 (which includes Tesla cars and trucks) are prevalent on the roads across the country today. Judicial Ambassadors Ju…

Queens Criminal Court Justice Toko Serita presides over a human sex trafficking intervention court. In this interview with her, she talks about how the court identifies, treats, and supports the victim/defendants who appear before her.By The National Judicial College

Almost all of our written communication is now conducted electronically, which can create issues for judges and attorneys trying to manage discovery and evidence. This podcast’s guests, Justice Dan Crothers, North Dakota Supreme Court and Mark Lanterman, CTO of Computer Forensic Services, teach regularly on these topics. They break down complex top…

Our guest in today’s podcast, Judge Augustus Chin, was appointed to the Holladay, Utah, Justice Court in August 2011. Before coming to the bench, Judge Chin worked at the US Embassy in his home country of Jamaica, a planner at an Army Depot, a law clerk and bailiff, a prosecutor, and a criminal defense attorney. He was also a member of the Utah Sup…

Retired Ohio Supreme Court Justice Judith Lanzinger shares her interest in poetry and shares recommendations for judges looking to reduce stress and find deeper meaning in their work.By The National Judicial College

Judge James Garbolino discusses the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and the treaty’s application to state court judges. U.S. state court judges are empowered to enforce the treaty’s provisions when one parent abducts their child in search of a more sympathetic court in a different nation.…

Guest host William Brunson interviews Ed Latessa, PhD, author and professor of Criminal Justice at the University of Cincinnati, on what scientific studies have shown to be effective in criminal justice and preventing recidivism.By The National Judicial College

Drug-Recognition Experts (DREs) are law enforcement officers with specialized training on identifying the influence of alcohol, other drugs, combinations of alcohol and other drugs, and injury/illness in drivers. Listen to this podcast to hear more about DREs from the perspective of a defense attorney and a prosecutor.…

Judge Straniere, Staten Island small claims judge, author of “Small Claims for Dummies”, and longtime NJC faculty, shares some of his best tips for handling self-represented litigants, ensuring procedural fairness, and running an efficient small claims docket.By The National Judicial College

Jerry Brown recently signed a bill eliminating cash bail in the state of California. Are you wondering about the future of pretrial release in YOUR jurisdiction? In this episode of The NJC Podcast, our host Joseph Sawyer calls up two experts, Michael Jones of Pinnacle Justice Consulting, and Timothy Schnacke from The Center of Legal and Evidence-Ba…

A case in which the Court held that the Nevada law requiring elected officials to disqualify themselves when they are asked to vote on matters that present a conflict of interest was constitutional.

A case in which the Court held that a Vermont statute banning the sale, transmission or use of prescription drug user data violated protected speech of the pharmaceutical research companies, manufacturers and others who use that data.

A case in which the Court held that securities fraud plaintiffs need not prove loss causation in order to obtain class certification.

A case in which the Court held that a federal sentencing court must determine whether an offense under state law is a "serious drug offense" within the meaning of the Armed Career Criminal Act by consulting the maximum sentence applicable at the time of the defendant's conviction.

A case in which the Court held that the fiduciary exception to the attorney-client privilege does not apply to the general trust relationship between the United States and the Indian Tribes.

A case in which the Court that held the Clean Air Act bars suits by governmental bodies and private parties seeking to curb emissions from utilities via the federal common law.

A case in which the Court held that a challenge to a patent's validity must offer clear and convincing evidence.

A case in which the Court held that a district court may not give a defendant a longer prison sentence based on speculation about if and when the defendant would be able to participate in an inmate drug rehabilitation program.

A case in which the Court held that federal law requires local telephone companies to allow new competitors in their markets to link to their existing networks through connecting wires at low, government-regulated rates.

A case in which the Court held that generic drug makers cannot be sued for not warning about potentially dangerous side effects on their drug labels, even when they follow federal rules that only require their labels to match those of their brand-name equivalents.

A case in which the Court held that in order to prove a criminal violation of the federal witness tampering statute when a defendant allegedly kills a witness, the government must prove that the victim would have provided information regarding the crime.

A case in which the Court held that the small group who initiated a lawsuit could not represent all of Wal-Mart's female employees, and therefore could not bring a class action lawsuit against Wal-Mart.

A case in which the Court held that the Arizona campaign finance law linking public financing for candidates to the amount spent by their opponents violated the First Amendment's protection of political speech.

A case in which the Court ruled that courts should consider the age of a juvenile suspect in deciding whether he or she is in custody for Miranda purposes.

A case in which the Court held that a defendant facing incarceration for civil contempt does not have a constitutional right to a court-appointed attorney under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

A case in which the Court held that state and local government employees may not sue their employers for retaliation under the First Amendment's Petition Clause when they petition the government on matters of private concern.

A case in which the Court held that a court may award attorney's fees to civil rights defendants when the plaintiff's suit involves frivolous and non-frivolous claims, but only for the costs incurred due to the frivolous claims.

A case the Court dismissed, which would have considered whether an individual's motor vehicle records may be used as evidence if the police consulted those records only after making an illegal stop of the individual's vehicle.

A case in which the Court held that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary rule applies to a search that was authorized by precedent at the time of the search, but was subsequently ruled unconstitutional.

A case in which the Court held that former Attorney General John Ashcroft was entitled to qualified immunity.

A case in which the Court held that a blood-alcohol test admitted without the actual testimony of the person who prepared the results violates a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment rights under the Confrontation Clause.

A case which the Court vacated in part and remanded in favor of the defendant without addressing the Fourth Amendment question at issue.

A case in which the Court held that a whistleblower may not use information obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests to allege violations of the Federal Claims Act by a government contractor.

A case in which the Court held that patents on inventions that arise from federally-funded research do not automatically go to university where the inventor worked.

A case in which the Court held that the term "cocaine base" encompasses every form of cocaine that is classified chemically as a base.

A case in which the Court held that a federal judge has the authority to reduce a criminal sentence after the U.S. Sentencing Commission amended the Sentencing Guidelines if the judge has already accepted a plea agreement.

A case in which the Court ruled that induced infringement under the patent clause requires knowledge that the induced acts constitute patent infringement.

A case in which the Court held that a defendant, convicted under a federal statute, has a right to challenge his/her conviction based on the unconstitutionality of the statute.

A case in which the Court held that the time between the filing of a pretrial motion and its disposition is excluded from the deadline for commencing trial under the Speedy Trial Act.

A case in which the Court held that corporations do not have a right of personal privacy that would prevent the disclosure of public records handed over to federal agencies.

A case in which the Court held that health care providers cannot sue drug makers for overcharging public hospitals for prescription drugs.

A case in which the Court held that neither the government nor the contractor could pursue litigation because of the risk that state secrets might be revealed.

A case in which the Court held that the federal court exceeded its authority under the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act when it prevented a group of plaintiffs from proceeding with a class-action lawsuit over a cholesterol-lowering drug.

A case in which the Court held that the Bankruptcy Court did not have the constitutional authority to enter judgement on the petitioner's counterclaim.

A case in which the Court held that a conviction for resisting arrest counts as a violent felony under the Armed Career Criminal Act.

A case in which the Court held the exclusionary rule, which forbids the use of illegally seized evidence except in emergency situations, applies when the emergency is created by lawful police action.

A case in which the Court held that a consumer cannot sue a manufacturer in a U.S. court when the manufacturer's only connection with the U.S. is that another company sells its products in the country.