Editorial Comment

• Published date: 01 May 2003
• Author: Craig Hemmens
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986203251606
• Date: 01 May 2003
• Subject Matter: Editorial

10.1177/1043986203251606EDITORIALJournal of Contemporary Criminal Justice / May 2003Hemmens / EDITORIAL COMMENTEDITORIAL

EDITORIAL COMMENT

Although there exists a tremendous amount of research published in criminal

justice journals on the various aspects of the criminal justice system, there is

relatively little attention paid to legalissues, particularly criminal procedure.

This is not the case in law reviewsand legal periodicals, which are often filled

with criminal procedure–related issues. The purpose of this special issue is to

highlight this often-neglected but vitally important area of criminal justice

research—the law, in particular, the role of the U.S. Supreme Court. To do

this, I sought out authors who have conducted research on legal issues in

criminal justice from a variety of perspectives.The result is this special issue.

I was pleased to have had the opportunity to work with the authors who

contributed to this special issue. Their skills and professionalism made my

job ridiculously easy.I would also like to acknowledge the support and assis-

tance provided by Chris Eskridge, the editor of the Journal of Contemporary

Criminal Justice. He welcomed my proposal and facilitated the project at

every stage.

The five articles in this special issue covera variety of current legal issues

in criminal procedure. The first article, by Christopher Smith, “The

Rehnquist Court and Criminal Justice: An Empirical Assessment,” servesto

both introduce the topic and demonstrate that legal and empirical analysis

need not be separated from each other.Although much legal research focuses

on the developmentof legal doctrine or the significance of a particular case, it

is possible to apply quantitative analysis to the legal area with impressive

results, as political scientists have long recognized. Professor Smith’sarticle

uses the Supreme Court Judicial Data Base to examine criminal justice–

related decisions handed down between 1995 and 2000 in an effort to deter-

mine whether the high court is generally “conservative” or “liberal” in its

pronouncements. Although the Rehnquist Court has a reputation for being

unfailingly pro–law enforcement, the findings presented in this article sug-

gest reality is a bit more complex.

The next article, by Marvin Zalman and Elsa Shartsis, “A Roadblock Too

Far? Justice O’Connor’s Left Turn on Fourth” narrows the focus of inquiry

from the entire court to one justice, the first woman named to the Supreme

Court. Justice O’Connor is widely noted as a centrist, “swing” justice, one

who is frequently in the majority in 5 to 4 decisions, many of which involve

criminal procedure issues. Thus, her approach to the Fourth Amendment is of

158

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, Vol. 19 No. 2, May 2003 158-160

DOI: 10.1177/1043986203251606

© 2003 Sage Publications