Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on yet another momentous legal issue – this time, the claim of absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for claimed official acts by former ...

"When a trial judge tells the jurors to do anything other than objectively evaluate the evidence, the court effectively creates 12 standards of review," Justice David Wecht said. Pennsylvania judges ...

David DeCosse (@daviddecosse) is the director of religious and Catholic ethics at the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics, and is a regular commentator at National Catholic Reporter. Views are his own.

The powerful role of hypotheticals in oral arguments. The justices are experts at playing devil's advocate in oral arguments and leaving an audience unsure of the outcome. But sometimes the justices ...

Well, Dr. Jason Bull has done it again. He’s managed to snag a high-dollar client without trying, solve a mystery mid-trial, maneuver the person on trial into pleading the Fifth Amendment and have a ...

Pennsylvania judges should avoid using hypotheticals when instructing criminal juries on the reasonable doubt standard, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has said, wading into an issue of first ...