Nancy Gertner

A panel co-hosted by ProPublica, The New York Times Magazine, Harvard Law School’s Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice, and Harvard Law’s Criminal Justice Policy Program looked at the use of unreliable forensic science practices and models for reform...Held on Oct. 25 at Harvard Law School, the discussion convened prominent leaders from across the judicial system — including Nancy Gertner, a retired federal district judge and Harvard Law School senior lecturer

...In the new book “Tough Cases,” 13 trial judges from criminal, civil, probate, and family courts wrote candid and poignant firsthand accounts of the trials they can’t forget, giving readers a rare glimpse into their chambers. The book was the subject of a lively discussion at a panel sponsored by the Harvard Law School Library...“I don’t think I had ever really heard judges speak or write publicly about their thought processes and their tough cases the way this book captures,” said Andrew Crespo ’05, J.D. ’08, an assistant professor of law at Harvard Law School (HLS) and one of the panelists...Charles Fried, the Beneficial Professor of Law, said trial judges bear a heavy burden, not only because their work is lonely but because they have to steer their way through all facets of the human condition...For retired judge and HLS lecturer Nancy Gertner, “Tough Cases” reveals the challenges judges face and the need for the public to learn about them.

...Some legal experts do believe that the judiciary is feeling bolder than it once did, perhaps because of what they see as presidential overreach, perhaps because of Trump’s open hostility to the federal courts, reflected in his comment in 2017 about the “so-called” judge who first ruled against his travel ban and his reference to U.S. District Judge Gonzalo Curiel’s “Mexican heritage” when he was presiding over a case against Trump University. “Context matters,” as former federal judge and now Harvard Law School’s Nancy Gertner wrote in an article called “Judging in a Time of Trump.”

Roughly two dozen Harvard Law School professors have signed a New York Times editorial arguing that the United States Senate should not confirm Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court. Harvard affiliates — including former Law School Dean Martha L. Minow and Laurence Tribe — joined more than 1,000 law professors across the country in signing the editorial, published online Wednesday. The professors wrote that Kavanaugh displayed a lack of “impartiality and judicial temperament requisite to sit on the highest court of our land” in the heated testimony he gave during a nationally televised hearing held Sept. 27 in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee....As of late Wednesday, the letter had been signed by the following: Sabi Ardalan, Christopher T. Bavitz, Elizabeth Bartholet, Christine Desan, Susan H. Farbstein, Nancy Gertner, Robert Greenwald, Michael Gregory, Janet Halley, Jon Hanson, Adriaan Lanni, Bruce H. Mann, Frank Michelman, Martha Minow, Robert H. Mnookin, Intisar Rabb, Daphna Renan, David L. Shapiro, Joseph William Singer, Carol S. Steiker, Matthew C. Stephenson, Laurence Tribe, Lucie White, Alex Whiting, Jonathan Zittrain

An op-ed by Nancy Gertner. I was in a taxi enroute to the O’Hare Airport in Chicago Thursday afternoon. I had watched Christine Blasey Ford testimony in the morning. I was extraordinarily moved; I believed her, plain and simple. I thought that at the very least, there would be no rush to judgment on the part of the Senate — no confirmation vote until all of the circumstances of her accusation and others had been investigated. I asked the driver to turn to a station broadcasting the confirmation hearings so that I could hear Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s response. At first, I thought that the driver had turned to the wrong station. The man speaking sounded like a talk radio host, angry, spewing heated rhetoric about the Democrats, even the Clintons, referring to bizarre left wing conspiracy theories. I then realized that this was not a shock jock; this was Judge Kavanaugh. Kavanaugh’s performance at that hearing alone should be disqualifying.

A second woman has come forward and accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexual assault in an incident she says occurred during Kavnaugh's freshman year at Yale. The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to hear testimony from Kavanaugh's first accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, on Thursday, followed by testimony from Kavanaugh himself. It is unclear how these new allegations will affect the scheduled testimony or confirmation vote. Guests: Nancy Gertner, WBUR legal analyst, retired federal judge and senior lecturer at Harvard Law School.

An op-ed by Nancy Gertner. Without the context that the findings of an F.B.I. investigation could provide, the Senate hearing planned for Monday pitting Brett Kavanaugh against Christine Blasey Ford, who has accused him of sexual assault, runs the risk of being seen as little more than Kabuki theater, or, more pointedly, a gesture of appeasement to the #MeToo movement. In other words, we gave her a hearing, now we’re ready to vote.

It's not every presidential administration in which news that the former campaign chairman has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, gets knocked off the front page in a matter of hours. But the Trump team is ever the exception. And today, all anyone can talk about is his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and the woman who has publicly accused him of sexual assault. Jim Braude was joined by Nancy Gertner, retired federal judge and senior lecturer at Harvard Law, and Martha Coakley, former state Attorney General, now a partner at Foley Hoag, and Jim Rappaport, former chair of the Mass. GOP.

...“I would be very troubled if someone were about to go to jail for something like this that happened 40 years ago,” said Nancy Gertner, a retired federal judge who has written extensively in defense of women’s rights in sexual harassment and sexual assault. Still, she said, “With respect to the Supreme Court you’re dealing with an elite position which is a privilege to be confirmed for. And arguably the standards are much higher.” Judge Gertner noted that she had raised two teenagers — “teenage boys are nuts,” she said — and she has seen how allegations, even when found to be false, can unfairly tarnish young men. Last year, she and three other Harvard Law School professors urged the Department of Education to reassess Obama-era guidance to colleges on dealing with allegations of sexual assault, arguing they had encouraged colleges to adopt definitions of misconduct that are “seriously overbroad.”

It's not every presidential administration in which news that the former campaign chairman has agreed to cooperate with the special counsel, gets knocked off the front page in a matter of hours. But the Trump team is ever the exception. And today, all anyone nationally can talk about is his Supreme Court nominee, Brett Kavanaugh, and the woman who has publicly accused him of sexual assault. Jim Braude was joined by Nancy Gertner, retired federal judge and senior lecturer at Harvard Law, Martha Coakley, former state Attorney General and now a partner at Foley Hoag, and Jim Rappaport, former chair of the Mass. GOP.

Paul Manafort’s lawyers declined Tuesday to call any witnesses to defend him against charges of bank and tax fraud. Mr. Manafort, President Trump’s former campaign chairman, also told the judge that he did not want to testify, clearing the way for closing arguments from both sides and the start of jury deliberations on Wednesday. The decision by the defense to rest without presenting its own evidence was not unusual. “The defense believes it has made its point through cross-examination,” said Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School professor and a former federal judge.

An op-ed by Nancy Gertner. It is not unusual for judges to intervene in court proceedings from time to time — to direct the lawyers to move the case along or to admonish them that evidence is repetitive. The judge's role is to act not as a "mere moderator," as the Supreme Court noted in Herron v. Southern Pacific in 1931, but as the "governor of the trial" responsible for assuring the proper conduct of all participants. The performance of U.S. District Court Judge T.S. Ellis III in the trial of Paul Manafort on bank fraud and tax evasion charges has been decidedly unusual. During the trial, Ellis intervened regularly, and mainly against one side: the prosecution. The judge's interruptions occurred in the presence of the jury and on matters of substance, not courtroom conduct. He disparaged the prosecution's evidence, misstated its legal theories, even implied that prosecutors had disobeyed his orders when they had not.

An op-ed by Nancy Gertner. It would be easy for Massachusetts citizens to feel complacent about the security of their reproductive rights. A 1980 decision by the Supreme Judicial Court guarantees reproductive rights under the Massachusetts Constitution, and recently passed legislation (dubbed the NASTY Women Act) repealed several decades-old Massachusetts antiabortion laws. But Massachusetts should still care about what would happen if the Supreme Court — with a new Justice Kavanaugh — overturns Roe v. Wade. For women across the country, it would mean a return to the days when wealthy women in states that prohibit abortion could travel to a state where it was legal — an option not available for poor women. Massachusetts could become a destination state for women seeking abortions. Make no mistake — Kavanaugh will vote to overturn Roe.

To prove that Mr. Manafort defrauded banks, prosecutors need to show he deliberately lied about financial facts, said Nancy Gertner, a former United States District Judge and a professor at Harvard Law School.

An interview with Nancy Gertner. Let's take a closer look at Wednesday's major ruling out of the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 5-4 decision, split along conservative and liberal lines, the court ruled that public sector unions cannot compel government workers to help pay for collective bargaining...In a scorching dissent, whose rage practically leaps off the page, Justice Elena Kagan accused the court of "weaponizing" the First Amendment, saying this was not the first time the court had sidestepped its role as legal body and used speech protections to choose winners and losers in long running political debates.

An interview with Nancy Gertner. In an 8-1 opinion today, the Supreme Court ruled that if an immigrant is given a "notice to appear" in immigration court, that it must designate a specific time or place. The case, Pereira v. Sessions, originated on Martha's Vineyard with a man who entered the country from Brazil 16 years ago and overstayed his visa. The decision could affect thousands of immigrants living in the United States without authorization.

An interview with Nancy Gertner. The Supreme Court today ruled on South Dakota vs. Wayfair, writing that states can collect sales taxes from businesses even if they do not have a physical presence in the state. The 5-4 ruling effectively overturned its own 1992 decision in Quill vs. North Dakota that restricted states from collecting some sales taxes.

An interview with Nancy Gertner. A report released today by the Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General found that former FBI Director James Comey acted outside the procedural norms of the FBI and the DOJ while conducting the investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server. The report also found no evidence of political bias in the FBI's handling of the case.

An op-ed by Nancy Gertner. Just when we have finally come to see the opioid crisis as both a public health and public safety problem, Governor Charlie Baker and others would have us careen in the opposite direction. Take the case of Manuel Soto-Vittini of Peabody. Salem Superior Court Judge Timothy Feeley sentenced Soto-Vittini to probation for possession with intent to distribute 15 grams of heroin and a small amount of cocaine. Soto-Vittini had no criminal convictions, just a dismissed drug-possession charge from a decade ago, when he was 22.

Do we really need to litigate every school dress code in federal court? The ACLU and the National Women’s Law Center think so. They argue that rules against inappropriate attire perpetuate “gender stereotypes” in violation of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits sex discrimination in education. Since its passage in 1972, Title IX has unleashed a flood of opportunity for women and girls in the classroom and on the playing field...In short, Title IX has been an incredible success. Unfortunately, however, the law that was intended to break down barriers to opportunity is now being misused to change the way students and teachers think about gender generally...As such, Melnick joins a growing chorus of principled liberal voices, including feminist scholar Laura Kipnis, former federal judge Nancy Gertner, legal affairs reporter Stuart Taylor, and Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk, who have opposed the use of Title IX to chill speech, deny due process, and prevent educators from resolving controversial issues without litigation.