Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Series

Litigation

Empirical legal studies

Cornell University Law School

2005

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Why Are So Many People Challenging Board Of Immigration Appeals Decisions In Federal Court? An Empirical Analysis Of The Recent Surge In Petitions For Review, John R.B. Palmer, Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, Elizabeth Cronin Oct 2005

Why Are So Many People Challenging Board Of Immigration Appeals Decisions In Federal Court? An Empirical Analysis Of The Recent Surge In Petitions For Review, John R.B. Palmer, Stephen W. Yale-Loehr, Elizabeth Cronin

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.


Judge-Jury Agreement In Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication Of Kalven And Zeisel's The American Jury, Theodore Eisenberg, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Waters, G. Thomas Munsterman, Stewart J. Schwab, Martin T. Wells Mar 2005

Judge-Jury Agreement In Criminal Cases: A Partial Replication Of Kalven And Zeisel's The American Jury, Theodore Eisenberg, Paula L. Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Nicole L. Waters, G. Thomas Munsterman, Stewart J. Schwab, Martin T. Wells

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

This study uses a new criminal case data set to partially replicate Kalven and Zeisel's classic study of judge-jury agreement. The data show essentially the same rate of judge-jury agreement as did Kalven and Zeisel for cases tried almost 50 years ago. This study also explores judge-jury agreement as a function of evidentiary strength (as reported by both judges and juries), evidentiary complexity (as reported by both judges and juries), legal complexity (as reported by judges), and locale. Regardless of which adjudicator's view of evidentiary strength is used, judges tend to convict more than juries in cases of "middle" evidentiary …