We would like to include information and links about current research projects. Please contact us so we can add reference to your research.
The collection below is incomplete. It awaits your input!
Research and Training Institute, Ministry for Justice, Japan
Australian Institute of Judicial Administration
The AIJAs current research projects include:
* Court referral to ADR
* Jury charges
* Court governance
* Legal theasaurus
School of Law, Flinders University
Associate Professor Kathy Mack and Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu, Magistrates Research Project
Magistrates courts in Australia are the focus of a national, multi-year, empirical research project being conducted by Associate Professor Kathy Mack and Professor Sharyn Roach Anleu of Flinders University, in collaboration with all Australian magistrates and local courts and the Association of Australian Magistrates. Financial support is provided by the Australian Research Council (ARC), with further financial and practical support from the Australian Association of Magistrates (AAM), all Magistrates/Local courts, and the Australian Institute of Judicial Administration (AIJA), as well as Flinders University.
The first phase of the project has produced a national picture of the nature, size and operations of magistrates courts in Australia; an outline of issues as the basis for a national research agenda for magistrates and magistrates courts; and an annotated bibliography.
Judicial Administration and Justice Studies Institute
Research Institute on Judicial Systems (Bologna)
In 2002 the scientific activity was distributed into 12 projects carried out within the frame of 5 main research areas:
1. Comparative judicial systems (Giuseppe Di Federico). Two projects have been carried out:
1.1. Judicial independence and capacity;
1.2. European court of human rights and EU court of justice.
2. Criminal justice (Giuseppe Di Federico). This research area included 2 projects:
2.1. Comparative analysis of the prosecutorial role;
2.2. Defence lawyers and human rights.
3. Legal professions (Giuseppe Di Federico). In this research area two projects have been carried out:
3.1 Judicial public policies;
3.2. Judicial ethics.
4. Organization and technological innovation in judicial administration (Marco Fabri). Two projects have been developed:
4.1. Technological innovation in judicial systems;
4.2. Evaluation methods for the administration of justice.
5. Organization and working of juvenile justice systems (Anna Mestitz). In this research area four projects have been carried out:
5.1. Juvenile criminal process and defendant rights;
5.2. Victim-offender mediation and restorative justice in the Italian juvenile judicial system;
5.3. Victim-offender mediation and juvenile policies in Europe;
5.4. Forensic interviews with children and juveniles (victims and/or witnesses).
Institute for Judicial Research
Center for US-Mexico Studies
University of California, San Diego
April 12, 2002. Planning Meeting at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies in La Jolla to finalize the lines of inquiry for the "Project on Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico", involving research participants from Mexico and the United States.
June 19, 2002. Planning meeting at the Colegio de Mexico in Mexico City to finalize the specific contributions and forms of institutional collaboration between academics, government sources, and non-governmental organizations.
October 23, 2002. Working group meeting on cross-border collaboration in law enforcement and security at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies organized by Dr. David A. Shirk. This working group focuses on bi-national collaboration between Mexico and the United States and along the U.S.-Mexican border.
January 24, 2003. Working group meeting on crime indicators and criminology at the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas in Mexico City organized by Marcelo Bergman. Special invited guest Alan Bergman from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
February 19, 2003. Seminar on "Policy Reform and Best Practices for the Administration of Justice in Mexico and the Borderlands" at the Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies.
February 21, 2003. Working group meeting on police and law enforcement at El Colegio de Mexico organized by Colegio de México researcher Dr. Arturo Alvarado. This working group studies the reform of police organizations and methods in Mexico.
April 28, 2003. Working group meeting on judicial reform at the IIJ-UNAM organized by Dr. Hugo Concha. This working groups studies the challenges facing Mexican lawyers and legal experts in Mexico, including professional development and curricular reform.
April 25, 2003. Working group on public policy and best practices at the Centro de Investigación y Docencia Económicas organized by Allison Rowland and David Shirk. This meeting will focus on specific case studies and pilot projects for justice sector reform in Mexico.
May 16-17, 2003. Conference "Reforming the Administration of Justice in Mexico." This conference will present original research and draw on the findings of working group activities over the preceding 6 months to address issues of crime, law enforcement, judicial reform, civic participation and oversight, and justice sector practices and reforms in Mexico and the borderlands.
July 31, 2003. Publication of Online Working Paper database of research on reforming the administration of justice in Mexico.
National Center for State Courts
The NCSC has many current projects including,
Trial performance standards
Understanding court culture and improving performance
Implementing national plan to improve public trust and confidence
Public opinion survey on the courts
Innovations in jury management
Evaluation of centers for complex litigation
Weighted caseload studies
RAND Institute for Civil Justice
Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision
In its 1993 Daubert decision, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified both the standards federal judges should use and the role they should play in deciding whether expert evidence is to be admitted into a case. Instead of deferring to the appropriate expert community or to the jury, judges were directed to examine the method or reasoning underlying such evidence themselves and to act as "gatekeepers" in admitting only reliable and relevant material.
In a new report from RAND's Institute for Civil Justice, researchers Lloyd Dixon and Brian Gill examine the effects of the new standards and conclude that federal district court judges have been following those directions. Analyzing trends in 399 opinions issued between January 1980 and June 1999, they found that judges have been scrutinizing the reliability and relevance of expert evidence and the qualifications of expert witnesses with greater care and rigor since the decision was handed down.
The study also found that admissibility decisions regarding expert evidence have increasingly high stakes. For example, the proportion of expert challenges leading to case dismissals has increased in the years since Daubert.
Although they found clear indications that judges have been taking greater care to evaluate the reliability of expert evidence, Dixon and Gill did not examine whether the enhanced scrutiny has produced better outcomes.
Standards for Admitting Expert Evidence in Federal Civil Cases Since the Daubert Decision, (ISBN 0-8330-3088-4) is available on RAND's website at http://www.rand.org/publications/MR/MR1439/ for a limited time. A printed copy can be ordered for $20 from RAND's distribution department (firstname.lastname@example.org or call toll-free 877-584-8642). The study is also available at http://www.westlaw.com/, an online, subscription-only distributor. (access: 26/8/03)