| Abstrakt: |
Anyone interested in appellate review of discretionary trial determinations will want to read this Article. This study contends that prior experience as a trial judge can favorably shape how appellate judges think when analyzing these rulings. For this conclusion, I rely on my own experience as an appellate judge who first sat as a trial judge, and on New Jersey's judicial history. New Jersey's relatively unique appellate court structure is a perfect case study to make that point. By extrapolating lessons learned from that history and relying on empirical data, I maintain that the practical benefits of prior trial judge experience are substantial. Pre-1947, New Jersey appellate judges had baked-in trial duties, a system which administered justice ineffectively. Change was inevitable. During ratification of the State's third constitution in 1947, there was overwhelming support for separating the trial and appellate roles, and attention shifted to how dedicated appellate judges would be selected. The dual judicial functions stopped in 1947 when New Jersey created an appellate court composed only of former trial judges. This Article tells the fascinating tale of how that happened and why it matters to appellate administration of justice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
