Showing papers in "Justice System Journal in 2015"
TL;DR: For instance, the authors found that most criminal justice officials endorse the implementation and enforcement of current sex offender laws, despite having doubts about their efficacy, and that variation exists among types of criminal justice officers with respect to their perspectives on sex offenders.
Abstract: Despite widespread media attention, research efforts, and political support, there is relatively little known about how individuals who are employed in the criminal justice system perceive the fairness, efficacy, and scope of policies aimed at sex offenders. The present study considers the attitudes and beliefs toward sex offenders and sex offender laws, including registration, community notification, and residency restrictions, held by a diverse sample of criminal justice officials who represent all three major components of the criminal justice system. Findings reveal that variation exists among types of criminal justice officials with respect to their perspectives on sex offenders, and most criminal justice officials endorse the implementation and enforcement of current sex offender laws, despite having doubts about their efficacy.
33 citations
TL;DR: The authors found that amici's influence on legal policy is conditional on their connection with litigants, and that they have a less direct effect on Court policymaking than the literature suggests.
Abstract: The support of amicus curiae may increase slightly the probability that the U.S. Supreme Court adopts the legal policy suggested by a litigant, but amici alone are rarely the source of legal doctrine. When amici echo the litigant's legal policy, however, they enhance the likelihood that the policy is chosen. Anecdotes that suggest that organized interests have a straightforward effect on Court policymaking appear to be just that—anecdotal. It seems instead that amici's influence on legal policy is conditional on their connection with litigants, and that they have—and may want—a less direct effect on Court policymaking than the literature suggests.
18 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the institutional mechanisms at the state supreme courts and update decades-old research regarding these practices and find significant differences between previous findings and their own, and offer a preliminary analysis regarding their likely impact on court collegiality and doctrinal development.
Abstract: Conference discussion, voting, and opinion assignment affect court collegiality and policy output. We examine these institutional mechanisms at the state supreme courts and update decades-old research regarding these practices. We find significant differences between previous findings and our own. We note recent developments in deliberative rules and opinion assignment procedures at these courts and offer a preliminary analysis regarding their likely impact on court collegiality and doctrinal development. We conclude with suggestions for further research in light of our findings regarding strategic behavior and policy output at the state courts of last resort.
17 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined what factors determine opinion writing behavior among district court judges and found that legal, hierarchical, and institutional features are critical in motivating opinion writing and opinion length and that personal factors have very limited effects.
Abstract: American trial court judges’ roles and behavior vary greatly from their appellate court brethren. One such area of difference has to do with opinion writing behavior, an area where trial judges hold a great deal of discretion in determining whether to write an opinion and, if they do, how long the opinion should be. To examine what factors determine opinion writing behavior among district court judges, this study relies on analyses of an original dataset of civil cases that terminated in eighteen federal district courts from 2000 to 2006. The results indicate that legal, hierarchical, and institutional features are critical in motivating opinion writing and opinion length and that personal factors have very limited effects. The fruits of this exercise have important implications for how we view and model the behavior of trial court judges in the future.
14 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine how the U.S. Courts of Appeals respond to the challenge to increase their policymaking role under the increasing resource constraints posed by caseload growth.
Abstract: The caseload of the U.S. Courts of Appeals has increased dramatically while the volume of cases decided by the United States Supreme Court has declined precipitously. Thus, the Courts of Appeals have increasingly assumed an important policymaking role as the final arbiter of federal law, while simultaneously confronted with increased demand to monitor the decisions of the U.S. District Courts for error. In the present study, we exploit this dilemma to examine how courts with mandatory jurisdiction respond to the challenge to increase their policymaking role under the increasing resource constraints posed by caseload growth. We focus on shifts in the use of two important policymaking institutions of the Courts of Appeals—disposition with oral argument and by en banc rehearing. We find that as caseload stress has become particularly acute, the Courts of Appeals have prioritized disposition by oral argument over the use of en banc rehearing. Given the decline in the docket of the Supreme Court, an implicatio...
12 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors systematically analyzed the available data on SCOTUS clerk appointments to more thoroughly investigate the gender disparity in the hiring practices of its justices across the time period, 1941 to 2011, and compare this data, whenever possible, to that collected for the SCC from 1967 to 2007.
Abstract: In this article, we systematically analyze the available data on SCOTUS clerk appointments to more thoroughly investigate the gender disparity in the hiring practices of its justices across the time period, 1941 to 2011, and compare this data, whenever possible, to that collected for the SCC from 1967 to 2007. In doing so, we are especially interested in exploring the impact of justice ideology and justice gender on individual decisions to hire female clerks. We maintain that the gender imbalance that has characterized the U.S. Supreme Court's composition might, at least partially, account for the discrepancy between the number of male and female clerks that have worked for this Court. It may also explain the notable relationship between a justice's ideology and his or her decision to hire female clerks.
11 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors examine the factors that influence the total number of amicus briefs filed in each case and find that certain factors influence amicus activity during this early stage of decision making, including the presence of the solicitor general as amicus curiae, case salience, and the issue areas involved in litigation.
Abstract: Past research indicates that amicus briefs influence the Supreme Court's decision to issue a writ of certiorari; however, we know relatively little about the reasons that lead interest groups to file such briefs. We seek to explain how organized interests make decisions about whether or not to file amicus curiae briefs during case selection, and we examine the factors that influence the total number of amicus briefs filed in each case. We find that certain factors influence amicus activity during this early stage of decision making, including the presence of the solicitor general as amicus curiae, case salience, and the issue areas involved in litigation.
11 citations
TL;DR: The authors investigated the decision by circuit chief judges to designate district court judges for assignment in the United States Courts of Appeals and found that while circuit chiefs are more likely to use visitors when the working conditions of the courts of appeals are suboptimal, their selection from the pool of potential visitors is driven primarily by their ideological congruity with the potential visitor.
Abstract: Judges serving in the United States Courts of Appeals are theorized to pursue goals related to both the content of legal policy and the institutional maintenance of their court in the decision-making process. However, it is unclear how judges respond when these two goals are put into competition. To answer this question, I investigate the decision by circuit chief judges to designate district court judges for assignment in the courts of appeals. The analysis demonstrates that while circuit chiefs are more likely to use visitors when the working conditions of the courts of appeals are suboptimal, their selection from the pool of potential visitors is driven primarily by their ideological congruity with the potential visitor. This result suggests chief judges strategically manipulate the visiting judge process and that institutional goals structure the pursuit of policy preferences in the courts of appeals.
9 citations
TL;DR: For example, this paper found that Justices Scalia and Breyer differ markedly in the interpretive approaches used most often in their opinions and that the differences are consistent with their distinct jurisprudential philosophies.
Abstract: According to influential theories of judicial behavior, Supreme Court opinions are best seen not as genuine reflections of jurisprudentially based decision making but, rather, as insincere legitimating cloaks for decisions based on extralegal policy preferences or other political motives. Perhaps the best evidence of politically motivated opinion writing is provided by Phelps and Gates (1996; 1991), who demonstrate a disconnect between the interpretive theories publicly promoted and those actually applied in constitutional opinions written by Justices Brennan and Rehnquist. We demonstrate, by contrast, that Justices Scalia and Breyer differ markedly in the interpretive approaches used most often in their opinions and that the differences are consistent with their distinct jurisprudential philosophies. Furthermore, we find no evidence of a relationship between the ideological direction of opinions and the kinds of arguments presented therein. Thus, necessary (though in themselves insufficient) conditions f...
8 citations
TL;DR: This paper explored the effect of a number of the benefits Galanter identifies on litigation outcomes for civil jury trials in four states with particular attention to the size of the law firms representing the litigants.
Abstract: In his influential piece, Galanter (1974) argues that repeat players in the judicial system can be expected to succeed at trial in part because of the advantages repeat players enjoy compared to the one-shotters. This article explores the effect of a number of the benefits Galanter identifies on litigation outcomes for civil jury trials in four states with particular attention to the size of the law firms representing the litigants. We find possessing an advantage in relative firm size, without considering other factors, appears to produce no significant advantage in terms of achieving plaintiff compensation. On the other hand, a local presence in the county where the trial occurs increases plaintiff attorney success rates when challenging out-of-town defense firms, especially when the plaintiff's law firm is the larger of the two. Additionally, devoting more resources in terms of human capital to a particular case increases the probability of favorable outcomes.
7 citations
TL;DR: This article found support for the notion that early fluidity, changing positions from before oral arguments to after, especially when combined with major shifts in the majority coalition, can be a bellwether of traditional fluidity.
Abstract: Judicial scholars have devoted significant effort to analyzing and understanding the implications of justices switching their votes during the opinion drafting stage, known as voting fluidity. Given that justices individually begin their consideration of the merits of cases with their preparation for oral arguments, I argue that these earlier positions in cases are valuable indicators of subsequent behavior, such as voting fluidity. More specifically, I find support for the notion that early fluidity, changing positions from before oral arguments to after, especially when combined with major shifts in the majority coalition, can be a bellwether of traditional fluidity. The analysis suggests that consideration of early fluidity and its motivations furthers our understanding of late fluidity above and beyond known indicators in the literature.
TL;DR: This paper examined the marginal effects of each of the variables depending on the type of attorneys and found that different variables predict success for each type of attorney, and they also provided a clearer picture of the bureaucratic determinants of success for the attorneys before the Supreme Court.
Abstract: The Office of the Solicitor General is internally structured as a bureaucracy, and it also functions as part of the greater bureaucracy of the Department of Justice. Members of the Office of the Solicitor General have one of three designations: solicitor general, deputy solicitor general, or assistant to the solicitor general. The individuals who hold these titles are subject to varying political and bureaucratic pressures. Taking into account this internal variation to the Office of the Solicitor General, I find that different variables predict success for each type of attorney. By examining the marginal effects of each of the variables depending on the type of attorney, I paint a clearer picture of the bureaucratic determinants of success for the attorneys before the Supreme Court.
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors used text characteristics of 958 cases filed at Utrecht District Court in 2009-2010 to explain differences in text characteristics by differences in legal area and various case characteristics.
Abstract: The primary function of written judgments is to legitimize the decision of the court. In the Netherlands, the judiciary perceives a gap between itself and the general public. Laypeople seem to understand little of the work of the courts. An important question is: For whom do judges write their judgments? This study presumes that the various intended audiences (parties, professional lawyers, other judges, the general public) can be deduced from the characteristics of justification texts: text complexity, juridical intensity, and moral considerations. The purpose of this study is to explain differences in text characteristics by differences in legal area and various case characteristics. We used the text characteristics of 958 cases filed at Utrecht District Court in 2009–2010. The results show that conflict and management characteristics are far more important predictors of text characteristics than “legal area” (trade, administrative, criminal, small claims, family). Also, conflict characteristics are mor...
TL;DR: The authors analyzed private memoranda exchanged by justices who served during the Burger Court and found that silent acquiescence is a rare but regular occurrence on the modern Court, and is more likely to occur in comparatively unimportant cases.
Abstract: The norm of silent acquiescence on the Supreme Court was thought to have been eviscerated in the twentieth century by certain institutional reforms and the rise of dissenting opinions. Given that silent acquiescence is difficult to observe, however, the extent to which this norm persists on the modern Court remains unclear. To overcome this observational difficulty, I analyze private memoranda exchanged by justices who served during the Burger Court. The empirical results suggest that silent acquiescence is a rare but regular occurrence on the modern Court, and is more likely to occur in comparatively unimportant cases. Notwithstanding institutional and personnel changes that limited silent acquiescence and precipitated an increase in dissenting opinions, it appears that the practice of go-along voting continued throughout the Burger Court. The results have implications for our understanding of separate opinion writing, judicial decision-making, and judicial legitimacy.
TL;DR: In this article, the partisan affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of a plaintiff challenging a local, state, or federal campaign finance policy influences the case votes of U.S. district court judges.
Abstract: This study seeks to determine if the partisan affiliation (Democrat or Republican) of a plaintiff challenging a local, state, or federal campaign finance policy influences the case votes of U.S. district court judges. Using an original database of campaign finance cases decided between 1971 and 2007, I find that judges do not systematically favor challenges filed by plaintiffs who share the judge's partisan affiliation. However, judges are statistically less likely to favor challenges filed by plaintiffs who are members of an opposing major political party. These results indicate that plaintiffs who do not share a judge's partisan affiliation are at a disadvantage when challenging campaign finance policies.
TL;DR: A practical tool for improving caseflow management, called the “timeframe alarm system,” has been designed to improve managerial and work planning actions in courts and to help bring timeframes as a more integral part of everyday court operations.
Abstract: A major challenge in effective caseflow management in courts is the low level of acceptance concerning the established timeframes and only modest compliance toward them. This article introduces a practical tool for improving caseflow management, called the “timeframe alarm system.” The tool has been designed to improve managerial and work planning actions in courts and to help bring timeframes as a more integral part of everyday court operations. The tool is designed in an improvement project in a Finnish court. The aim of the project has been to combine the expertise of judiciary and operations management scholars. The article introduces the main features of the tool and the tool design process, as well as analysis concerning the functionality and usability of the tool.
TL;DR: This article found that the ABA ratings for over 1,800 nominees to the federal district courts from 1964 to 2012 indicate that salary is an important determinant of both the quality of candidates nominated and those confirmed to the US federal bench.
Abstract: Many have expressed concern over the working conditions of federal district court judges who face comparatively low salaries in contrast to those in peer professions. As a means of enticing new judges of the highest quality, Chief Justices Rehnquist and Roberts have urged Congress and the president to increase judicial pay. However, scholars have not conducted a systematic, empirical investigation of whether higher salaries do, in fact, attract better prospective judges. We turn our attention to this issue. We first develop an exhaustive dataset of ABA ratings for over 1,800 nominees to the federal district courts from 1964 to 2012. We next model the effects of salary on the quality of nominations and confirmations. We find that salary is an important determinant of both the quality of candidates nominated and those confirmed to the federal bench. Our findings have critical implications for public policy, as our results confirm the need for better pay for federal judges.
TL;DR: This paper found that those vested in the outcome, such as African Americans, religious individuals, and parents, were more likely to change their attitudes in favor of the decision and become more positive toward the institution.
Abstract: Building on the geographic constituency theory of awareness of Supreme Court decisions, we conducted a panel survey in Cleveland, Ohio before and after Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, which upheld state-funded vouchers in religious schools. We found several characteristics predict awareness: news consumption, income, and knowledge of and positive feelings toward the Court. Our results also showed those vested in the outcome, such as African Americans, religious individuals, and parents were more likely to change their attitudes in favor of the decision and become more positive toward the institution. These findings help us understand the circumstances under which some individuals may become vested in court decisions.
TL;DR: This article found that prior judicial experience is a desirable trait across selection methods, and prospective supreme court justices should not pass on opportunities for judicial service on either major or minor trials courts or intermediate appellate courts.
Abstract: Prior judicial experience is an increasingly common attribute among state supreme court justices, and the justices serving during and since 1959 and 2010 have had diverse judicial experiences, including service on different types of courts and for various amounts of time. After weighing the merits and drawbacks of prior judicial experience, I find that no judicial selection methods favor experienced justices over others despite claims by judicial reformers that merit selection will create more qualified courts. Instead, prior judicial experience is a desirable trait across selection methods, and prospective supreme court justices should not pass on opportunities for judicial service on either major or minor trials courts or intermediate appellate courts.
TL;DR: The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the United States Sentencing Commission, which had the responsibility to promulgate sentencing guidelines as mentioned in this paper, and these guidelines created a range of determinate sentences for all categories of federal offenses and were binding on all federal judges.
Abstract: The Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 created the United States Sentencing Commission, which had the responsibility to promulgate sentencing guidelines. These guidelines created a range of determinate sentences for all categories of federal offenses and were binding on all federal judges. In a curious aftermath of legislation designed to toughen the response of courts to crime, scholars have noticed that federal judges’ conviction rates have fallen since the 1980s (Leipold 2004). This unexpected trend raises the possibility that the outcome of the Sentencing Act is opposite of what Congress intended. When faced with mandatory sentencing guidelines, judges sometimes try cases in which they believe the defendant to be guilty, but the legally mandated sentence is too harsh given the circumstances. In these cases, judges may choose to acquit. Since these defendants would have been convicted in the absence of guidelines, aggregate conviction rates should be lower when guidelines are in effect than otherwise. We te...
TL;DR: The authors found that voters have very little understanding of various types of judicial philosophies and thus they question whether the enormous time and expenditure invested in broadcasting such philosophies is advantageous to voters, and they conclude that it is not beneficial to voters.
Abstract: Judicial elections are typical “down ballot” contests, rarely capturing the interest of most voters. To help distinguish themselves at the polls, judicial candidates have begun to publish their decision-making philosophies with the apparent hope of informing voters. Using survey data collected during the 2012 elections, we explore how well individuals understand such philosophies. In general, we find that voters have very little understanding of various types of judicial philosophies and thus we question whether the enormous time and expenditure invested in broadcasting such philosophies is advantageous to voters.
TL;DR: In 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas held in Graham v. Owens that state parole officials violated a parolee's constitutional due-process rights when they imposed sex o...
Abstract: In 2009, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas held in Graham v. Owens that state parole officials violated a parolee's constitutional due-process rights when they imposed sex o...