Advocacy and Contempt: Constitutional Limitations on the Judicial Contempt Power. Part One: The Conflict Between Advocacy and Contempt

The courts\u27 inherent power to punish misconduct that interferes with the judicial process as criminal contempt often conflicts with attorneys\u27 first amendment and due process rights, and their clients\u27 sixth amendment rights to vigorous legal representation. In balancing these competing interests, the Supreme Court has employed seemingly diverse standards to demarcate the constitutional limitations on the substantive scope of the contempt power. Professor Raveson argues that the Constitution should limit the contempt power so that it may only be used to punish actual obstructions of the administration of justice. He maintains that because the goals of our system of justice are frequently in opposition, the appropriate dividing line between permissible advocacy and obstruction can be drawn only by balancing the various goals of a trial in a way that maximizes the value of these interests to the system of justice as a whole. The proper balance, in turn, can only be achieved by including within the calculus of contempt recognition of the actual experiences of trial participants. Professor Raveson concludes that appropriate consideration of the value of advocacy to the processes of justice requires that advocacy sometimes be permitted to interfere with competing aims of a trial. Realization of the full value of advocacy and maximization of the various goals of our trial system require that a buffer zone be constructed surrounding valuable advocacy to afford adequate protection from punishment and to diminish deterrence

Advocacy and Contempt—Part Two: Charting the Boundaries of Contempt: Ensuring Adequate Breathing Room for Advocacy

Professor Raveson previously argued that the Constitution limits the contempt power to the punishment of actual obstructions of the administration of justice. In this Article, he maintains that any standard for defining contempt that is less restrictive than actual obstruction or the imminent threat of obstruction would be unconstitutionally overbroad. In addition, Professor Raveson discusses the inevitable imprecision that inheres even in the actual obstruction standard for contempt. He explains that the appropriate division between permissible advocacy and contempt must reflect a balance between the frequently conflicting goals of a trial in order to maximize the value of these interests to the system of justice as a whole. Finally, Professor Raveson suggests a number of variables that can assist to define and balance these competing interests, as well as provide greater certainty to the bench and bar in determining whether particular conduct is contemptuous

Courting Justice ::Ten New Jersey Cases That Shook the Nation /

Since 1947 a modernized New Jersey Supreme Court has played an important and controversial role in the state, nation, and world. Its decisions in cutting-edge cases have confronted society's toughest issues, reflecting changing social attitudes, modern life's complexities, and new technologies. Paul Tractenberg has selected ten of the court's landmark decisions between 1960 and 2011 to illustrate its extensive involvement in major public issues, and to assess its impact. Each case chapter is authored by a distinguished academic or professional expert, several of whom were deeply involved in the cases' litigation, enabling them to provide special insights. An overview chapter provides context for the court's distinctive activity. Many of the cases are so widely known that they have become part of the national conversation about law and policy. In the Karen Ann Quinlan decision, the court determined the right of privacy extends to refusing life-sustaining treatment. The Baby M case reined in surrogate parenting and focused on the child's best interests. In the Mount Laurel decision, the court sought to increase affordable housing for low- and moderate-income residents throughout the state. The Megan's Law case upheld legal regulation of sex offender community notification. A series of decisions known as Abbott/Robinson required the state to fund poor urban school districts at least on par with suburban districts. Other less well known cases still have great public importance. Henningsen v. Bloomfield Motors reshaped product liability and tort law to protect consumers injured by defective cars; State v. Hunt shielded privacy rights from unwarranted searches beyond federal standards; Lehmann v. Toys 'R' Us protected employees from sexual harassment and a hostile work environment; Right to Choose v. Byrne expanded state constitutional abortion rights beyond the federal constitution; and Marini v. Ireland protected low-income tenants against removal from their homes. For some observers, the New Jersey Supreme Court represents the worst of judicial activism; others laud it for being, in its words, "the designated last-resort guarantor of the Constitution's command." For Tractenberg, the court's activism means it tends to find for the less powerful over the more powerful and for the public good against private interests, an approach he applauds