Judge Jerome N. Frank was a founding father of legal realism along with Karl Llewellyn. Legal realism holds that legislation stems from social interests and public policy rather than from rules. Frank identified two types of legal realists: rule skeptics and fact skeptics. Rule skeptics believe judges are influenced by social factors rather than rules, while fact skeptics assert that facts presented in trials are uncertain and judges evaluate facts to support their decisions rather than present objectively. Frank emphasized the uncertainty of law and facts in judicial decisions. He argued that incorrect rules or facts lead to incorrect decisions, making outcomes difficult to predict.
Judge Jerome N. Frank was a founding father of legal realism along with Karl Llewellyn. Legal realism holds that legislation stems from social interests and public policy rather than from rules. Frank identified two types of legal realists: rule skeptics and fact skeptics. Rule skeptics believe judges are influenced by social factors rather than rules, while fact skeptics assert that facts presented in trials are uncertain and judges evaluate facts to support their decisions rather than present objectively. Frank emphasized the uncertainty of law and facts in judicial decisions. He argued that incorrect rules or facts lead to incorrect decisions, making outcomes difficult to predict.
Original Description:
Frank N. Jerome on rule skeptics and fact skeptics
Judge Jerome N. Frank was a founding father of legal realism along with Karl Llewellyn. Legal realism holds that legislation stems from social interests and public policy rather than from rules. Frank identified two types of legal realists: rule skeptics and fact skeptics. Rule skeptics believe judges are influenced by social factors rather than rules, while fact skeptics assert that facts presented in trials are uncertain and judges evaluate facts to support their decisions rather than present objectively. Frank emphasized the uncertainty of law and facts in judicial decisions. He argued that incorrect rules or facts lead to incorrect decisions, making outcomes difficult to predict.
Judge Jerome N. Frank was a founding father of legal realism along with Karl Llewellyn. Legal realism holds that legislation stems from social interests and public policy rather than from rules. Frank identified two types of legal realists: rule skeptics and fact skeptics. Rule skeptics believe judges are influenced by social factors rather than rules, while fact skeptics assert that facts presented in trials are uncertain and judges evaluate facts to support their decisions rather than present objectively. Frank emphasized the uncertainty of law and facts in judicial decisions. He argued that incorrect rules or facts lead to incorrect decisions, making outcomes difficult to predict.
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1/ 3
“Judge Jerome N.
Frank, along with Karl Llewellyn, is considered as the founding father of
jurisprudential legal realism”1
“Legal realism”, is a theory according to which all the legislations stems from prevailing social interests and public policy. A “realist” is a person, an artist of a philosopher, who can see the things as they are and deal with them in a practical way, or the ones who prefers to present and discuss realism over visionary idea.
According to “Jerome N. Frank”, there were only two groups of realists. These groups are;
RULE SCEPTICS FACT SCEPTICS
“Rule-skeptics”, are the ones a who concentrate their attention on the decisions of “upper or appellate courts”. They have always opposed the use of legal norms to achieve consistency in the field of law. Instead, they relied on social science, such as the concepts of psychology, anthropology etc for rule consistency.
According to the theory of Rule Skeptics, judges are influenced by a number of ‘social influences,' such as their professional experience, social exposure, and so on, while giving their verdicts. In essence, a judge's professional behaviour is determined by "social forces" rather than "rules." Basically, ‘social forces’ and not ‘rules’ are the deciding factor in a judge’s professional conduct.
Jerome frank has agreed with John Chipman Gray that the legal rules are the only sources of law. They tell something about the law but they do not constitute the law itself
“Fact sceptics”, on the other hand, not only departs from the concept of rule certainty but also point outs the the uncertainty caused while establishing facts in the trial courts. According to Jerome Frank, even the trial judges did not establish the facts in their entirety.
“Fact scepticism. PayrollHeaven.com. Payroll & Accounting Heaven Ltd. September 15, 2021 https://payrollheaven.com/define/fact- scepticism/” He further underlined that, even though the rules are presumed to be clear, the trial court's conclusions are rarely based on them. Rather, it is determined by elements unique to the parties, witnesses, and facts of each case, such as conscious and subconscious attitudes, beliefs, and prejudices. These characteristics make it nearly impossible to predict a case's outcome because the case is determined on “idiosyncratic facts about the psychology or personality of the individual judge.” Fact sceptics, therefore refers to the concept of legal realism, which asserts that while elaborating on the grounds for a particular decision, the judge evaluates and presents the facts in a way that supports his decision rather than presenting the facts as they are.
Speaking for the United States court, in the case of In Re Fried2, Jerome frank emphasised on the fact finding of the case
To find the material facts from the mass of past events, courts have to contend with three classes of witness Those who consciously or subconscious select the facts from past events Those who are either lying of are honestly mistaken in narrating their recollection of past events Those who interpret the facts even when they are testifying about them
As a consequence Jerome frank that choice of material facts is discretionary
“Jerome N. Frank”, in his book,3, emphasised on the statement that law is not certain and it’s certainty is rather a myth. He emphasised on this uncertainty, that it is unreasonable to base the judgments on the basis of modifications and precedents, it is necessary to carefully examine the facts. Similarly according to him rules are merely word formulae. If these rules ought to have any meaning, it must be found in the facts of real life with which they are associated
A judicial decision is the outcome of applying a rule of law to the facts discovered by the judge. If the facts are incorrectly determined, the decision must be incorrect, and an appellate court where jurisprudence has tended to concentrate, not having seen the witnesses, is unlikely to overturn the factual findings. Furthermore, assessing whether the judge's guess as to the facts corresponds to the real facts is challenging enough when testimony is presented in the form of a printed record. The printed page frequently omits the witness's tone of voice, hesitancy or readiness with which he offers his answer, and other comparable phenomena. As a result, there is no standard by which we can judge the correctness of a judge's factual findings in a contested aces case. The judge frequently states the facts in such a way that it is impossible to discern which element of the statement was the fact with any degree of accuracy which he applied in making the decision by (rules * facts)4 2
| 6 | F.2D 453, 462
3
Law and the modern mine ( 1930 )
4
2 D=R*F D, is the decision R, is the rule F, is the fact This means that both the rules and facts affect the decision. “More Erroneous the rules and facts are, more erroneous decisions will be”
Bibliography (books, journals, articles )
1. David Derham. Judge Jerome frank: An Australian note of appreciation
