Letter from the Editor -Volume 42, Issue 1

Welcome to the first issue of Volume 42 for the Justice System Journal. JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The Journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the Journal’s Aims & Scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http:// mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj. Leading off our first issue of 2021, Taylor Kidd (University of California, Irvine) explores “Implicit and Explicit Attitudes Toward Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys.” Kidd investigates how potential jurors view both prosecutors and defense attorneys, two integral players in the criminal justice system, and then how those views may influence trial decisions. Importantly, Kidd distinguishes between explicit and implicit biases and finds both matter. Most notably, Kidd finds that implicit biases are most consequential in cases where the evidence is most ambiguous and so underlying attitudes have more opportunity to emerge. The other three research articles in this issue leave the bounds of the U.S. to examine courts in other countries. We begin our overseas exploration with Benjamin Bricker’s (Southern Illinois University) piece on “Consensus Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Judging and Judicial Deliberations.” Bricker conducts a comparative study of European courts to understand how judges reach consensus in different forums. Through both interviews with judges and clerks, as well as an analysis of an original dataset of European constitutional court decisions, Bricker finds that case complexity significantly influences the likelihood of consensus outcomes. We next move to an examination of Brazilian courts in “Adjudication Forums, Specialization, and Case Duration: Evidence from Brazilian Federal Courts,” by Caio Castelliano (University of Brasilia), Peter Grajzl (Washington and Lee University), Andre Alves (Office of the Attorney General, Brazil), and Eduardo Watanabe (University of Brasilia). Using Brazil as a case study, the authors investigate how court institutional structures and processes – including forms of court specialization – can influence case durations. They find that certain forms of specialization, but not others, can lead to faster case adjudications, providing important insights for courts across the globe. In our final research article, Elisa Fusco (University of Rome La Sapienza), Martina Laurenzi (Logista Italia), and Bernardo Maggi (University of Roma La Sapienza) explore “Length of Trials in the Italian Judicial System: An Efficiency Analysis by Macro-Area.” The Italian legal system is marked by both more judges than most European countries, but also longer case durations. The authors investigate both why this reality exists, and also how greater efficiency – and thus faster time to justice – may be achieved. Once again, their findings also provide potential lessons for judicial systems located well beyond Italy’s borders. Last, we end with two intriguing Legal Notes. First, Gbemende Johnson (Hamilton College) reviews the US Supreme Court’s recent decision in US Fish and Wildlife Service v. Sierra Club. This decision has important implications both for organizations and individuals that seek information from the federal government under the Freedom of Information Act, as well as for