Judges Commons^™

Blinking On The Bench: How Judges Decide Cases, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

How do judges judge? Do they apply law to facts in a mechanical and deliberative way, as the formalists suggest they do, or do they rely on hunches and gut feelings, as the realists maintain? Debate has raged for decades, but researchers have offered little hard evidence in support of either model. Relying on empirical studies of judicial reasoning and decision making, we propose an entirely new model of judging that provides a more accurate explanation of judicial behavior. Our model accounts for the tendency of the human brain to make automatic, snap judgments, which are surprisingly accurate, but which …

The Most Dangerous Justice Rides Into The Sunset, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this essay, our third and last in a series, we employ our previously developed techniques to measure the power of the Justices in the Rehnquist Court over its full 11 year run. Once again, Justice Kennedy rises to the top of our rankings, as he had done earlier. Our methods identify Justices Souter, Breyer and Ginsburg as being notable either for their influence or lack thereof. In addition, we rejoin the debate on the connection between being the median justice and being the most powerful one. We question whether even the most sophisticated methods of finding the median justice …

Inside The Bankruptcy Judge's Mind, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Specialization is common in medicine. Doctors become oncologists, radiologists, urologists, or even hernia repair specialists. Specialization is also common among practicing lawyers, who become estate planners or products liability lawyers or securities litigators. Judges, however, have historically been generalists who preside over any and all cases. This requires that judges become acquainted with the rules of civil procedure, the rules of criminal procedure, the evidentiary rules applicable to both civil and criminal cases, and the substantive law in almost every area. From the simplest slip-and-fall to the most complicated antitrust case, and nearly every civil and criminal action in between, …

Empirical Measures Of Judicial Performance: An Introduction To The Symposium, Jim Rossi, Steven G. Gey

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Inspired by the burgeoning empirical literature on the judiciary, the editors of the Florida State University Law Review have solicited some papers from leading scholars and federal courts of appeals judges, asking them to address the topic of empirical measures of judicial performance. The papers in this "Symposium on Empirical Measures of Judicial Performance" address empirical measures of judicial performance from a variety of methodological perspectives, but as this Foreword suggests, they can roughly be organized around three basic themes. First, many of the papers critique the empirical enterprise itself and especially the tournament strategy for evaluating judges, although these …

Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty Of Deliberately Disregarding, Chris Guthrie, Andrew J. Wistrich

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Due process requires courts to make decisions based on the evidence before them without regard to information outside of the record. Skepticism about the ability of jurors to ignore inadmissible information is widespread. Empirical research confirms that this skepticism is well founded. Many courts and commentators, however, assume that judges can accomplish what jurors cannot. This Article reports the results of experiments we have conducted to determine whether judges can ignore inadmissible information. We found that the judges who participated in our experiments struggled to perform this challenging mental task. The judges had difficulty disregarding demands disclosed during a settlement …

The Futility Of Appeal: Disciplinary Insights Into The "Affirmance Effect" On The United States Courts Of Appeals, Chris Wright Guthrie, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In contrast to the Supreme Court, which typically reverses the cases it hears, the United States Courts of Appeals almost always affirm the cases that they hear. We set out to explore this affirmance effect on the U.S. Courts of Appeal by using insights drawn from law and economics (i.e., selection theory), political science (i.e., attitudinal theory and new institutionalism), and cognitive psychology (i.e., heuristics and biases, including the status quo and omission biases).

Canons Of Construction And The Elusive Quest For Neutral Reasoning, James J. Brudney, Corey Ditslear

Vanderbilt Law Review

Federal statutes, like the lawmaking enterprise itself, are seldom models of efficiency. Whether through inevitable laxity or conscious choice, Congress when legislating leaves a fair number of gaps in the meaning of its complex regulatory schemes. In filling those gaps with case-specific interpretive responses, federal courts perform an important policymaking function.

Such policymaking has lately generated increased concerns about the politicization of the judiciary. Scholars using social science techniques have contributed to the image of courts as policymakers, by establishing that judges' political party affiliation and ideological orientation are at times significant predictors of voting behavior. Presidents and senators have …

Induced Litigation, Tracey E. George, Chris Guthrie

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

If "justice delayed" is "justice denied,"justice is often denied in American courts. Delay in the courts is a "ceaseless and unremitting problem of modem civil justice" that "has an irreparable effect on both plaintiffs and defendants." To combat this seemingly intractable problem, judges and court administrators routinely clamor for additional judicial resources to enable them to manage their dockets more "effectively and efficiently." By building new courthouses and adding new judgeships, a court should be able to manage its caseload more efficiently. Trial judges should be able to hold motion hearings, host settlement conferences, and conduct trials in a timely …

Induced Litigation, Chris Guthrie, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

If "justice delayed" is "justice denied,"justice is often denied in American courts. Delay in the courts is a "ceaseless and unremitting problem of modem civil justice" that "has an irreparable effect on both plaintiffs and defendants." To combat this seemingly intractable problem, judges and court administrators routinely clamor for additional judicial resources to enable them to manage their dockets more "effectively and efficiently." By building new courthouses and adding new judgeships, a court should be able to manage its caseload more efficiently. Trial judges should be able to hold motion hearings, host settlement conferences, and conduct trials in a timely …

Judicial Independence And The Ambiguity Of Article Iii Protections, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Is the federal judiciary truly an independent body? A quick glance at the Constitution would suggest the answer is yes. The Constitution provides for life tenure and a difficult removal process for federal judges that together, as the common wisdom goes, shield federal judges from the shifting winds of the more political branches and the public at large. The author of this essay argues, however, that on a closer examination of the protections provided for by the Constitution, judicial independence might be more mirage than truism. Threats to judicial independence arise not only externally through the actions of the other …

American Judges And International Law, A. M. Weisburd

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This article addresses an issue with which federal courts have been forced to deal with increasing frequency: How ought a judge go about determining the content of customary international law? The article seeks to demonstrate, using the example of the treatment of the concept of "jus cogens" by the courts of appeals, that federal courts have come to rely on doubtful sources in addressing questions of international law. More specifically, it sets out to show that courts frequently do not rely on the actual practice of governments to determine the content of customary international law, which would seem to be …

Judging By Heuristic: Cognitive Illusions In Judicial Decision Making, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The institutional legitmacy of the judiciary depends on the quality of the judgments that judges make. Even the most talented and dedicated judges surely make occasional mistakes, but the public expects judges to avoid making systematic errors that favor particular parties or writing opinions that embed these mistakes into the substantive law. Psychological research on human judgment, however, suggests that this expectation might be unrealistic.

The Competency Conundrum: Problems Courts Have Faced In Applying Different Standards For Competency To Be Executed, John L. Farringer, Iv

Vanderbilt Law Review

Throughout Anglo-American legal history, there has been a general agreement, based on numerous rationales, that mentally incompetent inmates should not be executed for their crimes. The recurring problem, however, is how to define "incompetence" or "insanity." Legislatures and courts have sought to provide a common- sense definition, but in practice judges must confront highly technical terminology from the ever evolving field of psychiatry. Additionally, the definition must be flexible enough to apply to a variety of cases, while being universal enough to assure that all defendants are treated fairly and equally.

At hearings to determine a prisoner's competency to be …

Inside The Judicial Mind, Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, Andrew J. Wistrich

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The quality of the judicial system depends upon the quality of decisions that judges make. Even the most talented and dedicated judges surely make occasional mistakes, but the public understandably expects judges to avoid systematic errors. This expectation, however, might be unrealistic. Psychologists who study human judgment and choice have learned that people frequently fall prey to cognitive illusions that produce systematic errors in judgment. Even though judges are experienced, well-trained, and highly motivated decision makers, they might be vulnerable to cognitive illusions. We report the results of an empirical study designed to determine whether five common cognitive illusions (anchoring, …

Judges Cooperating With Scientists: A Proposal For More Effective Limits On The Federal Trial Judge's Inherent Power To Appoint Technical Advisors, Robert L. Hess, Ii

Vanderbilt Law Review

Scientifically complex cases challenge the expertise of federal trial judges.' Nonetheless, the United States Supreme Court has held that federal trial judges must take an active role in deter- mining the admissibility of scientific evidence. The Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc. expressed its view that the adversary system is capable of handling most scientific issues, and noted that trial judges may seek the help of third-party experts. Thus, the federal trial judge confronted with a scientifically complex case may rely on the adversaries or may seek help from a third-party expert. When faced with this choice, judges …

Court Fixing, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

This Article critically examines the existing social science evidence on the relative importance of various individual factors on judicial behavior and adds to that evidence by considering the influence of prior academic experience on judges. Researchers have not focused much attention on the importance of a judge's background as a full-time law professor and legal scholar, although more than thirteen percent of courts of appeals appointees were former law professors. Franklin Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan both viewed the federal judiciary (particularly the Supreme Court and the Courts of Appeals) as integral to their policy agendas, and both further believed that …

Deciphering Courts Of Appeals Decisions Using The U.S. Courts Of Appeals Data Base, Tracey E. George, Reginald S. Sheehan

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

Is one circuit significantly more conservative or liberal than the others? Do circuit courts consistently avoid deciding the substance of certain appeals by concluding that the plaintiffs lack standing? Have state governments been more successful than other parties when they appeal adverse district court rulings? Do appeals courts act in a majoritarian or countermajoritarian manner with regard to elected institutions and the general public? The United States Courts of Appeals Data Base, an extensive data set of courts of appeals decisions, can address these and other questions about the circuit courts. This article describes the background, scope, and content of …

All Or Nothing: Explaining The Size Of Supreme Court Majorities, Paul H. Edelman, Suzanna Sherry

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

In this Article, Professors Edelman and Sherry use a probabilistic model to explore the process of coalition formation on the United States Supreme Court. They identify coalition formation as a Markov process with absorbing states and examine voting patterns from twelve Court Terms. On the basis of their data, they conclude that Justices are reluctant to remain in small minorities. Surprisingly, however, they also find that a three-Justice minority coalition is less likely to suffer defections than a four-Justice minority coalition. This counterintuitive result suggests that while in general it is minority Justices rather than majority Justices who drive the …

The Dynamics And Determinants Of The Decision To Grant En Banc Review, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The ability of U.S. Courts of Appeals to control the development of law within their respective circuits has been strained by the practice of divisional sittings, the growing caseload at the circuit court level, the increasing number of judges sitting within each circuit, and the decreasing probability of Supreme Court intervention. The primary method of maintaining coherence and consistency in doctrinal development within a federal circuit is en banc review. Yet, many critics contend that en bane rehearing is a time-consuming, inefficient procedure that fails to serve its intended purpose and too often is abused for political ends. This Article …

How Do Judges Think About Risk?, W. Kip Viscusi

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

A sample of almost 100 judges exhibited well-known patterns of biases in risk beliefs and reasonable implicit values of life. These biases and personal preferences largely do not affect attitudes toward judicial risk decisions, though there are some exceptions, such as ambiguity aversion, misinterpretation of negligence rules, and retrospective risk assessments in accident cases, which is a form of hindsight bias. Although judges avoided many pitfalls exhibited by jurors and the population at large, they nevertheless exhibited systematic errors, particularly for small probability-large loss events. These findings highlighted the importance of judicial review and the input of expert risk analysts …

Coping With "Loss": A Re-Examination Of Sentencing Federal Economic Crimes Under The Guidelines, Frank O. Bowman, Iii

Vanderbilt Law Review

The primary determinant of sentence length for federal economic criminals is the amount of "loss" resulting from an offender's conduct.' The idea of basing sentences for economic crimes primarily on "loss" has become the source of ongoing, complex, and proliferating disputes about what the term "loss" really means and how it should be interpreted in particular cases. The "loss" calculation is one of the most frequently litigated issues in federal sentencing law. There are at present splits of opinion between the federal circuits on at least eleven analytically distinct issues concerning the meaning and application of the "loss" concept. Even …

Developing A Positive Theory Of Decisionmaking On U.S. Courts Of Appeals, Tracey E. George

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

As the decisions of the United States Courts of Appeals become an increasingly important part of American legal discourse, the debate concerning adjudication theories of the circuit courts gain particular relevance. Whereas, to date, the issue has received mostly normative treatment, this Article proceeds systematically and confronts the positive inquiry: how do courts of appeals judges actually decide cases? The Article proposes theoretically, tests empirically, and considers the implications of, a combined attitudinal and strategic model of en banc court of appeals decision making. The results challenge the classicist judges, legal scholars, and practitioners' normative frameworks, and suggest positive theory's …

"Batson" For The Bench? Regulating The Peremptory Challenge Of Judges, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

The choice of whether to adopt or preserve judicial peremptories should not turn on the resolution of one issue. The risk that such challenges will be used to discriminate between judges on the basis of race must be considered along with the other disadvantages of the challenge and weighed against its potential benefits. Nevertheless, if there is one lesson to be learned from the last few decades of scrutiny of the criminal justice system, it is that discretion can and will be used to discriminate. This difficulty weighs heavily against injecting into our justice system additional discretionary opportunities for litigants …

Issues And Outcomes, Guidance, And Indeterminacy: A Reply To Professor John Rogers And Others, David G. Post, Steven C. Salop

Vanderbilt Law Review

There is now a small but growing literature on the proper voting procedure for multijudge panels. Professor John Rogers began the most recent round of thinking about these vexing issues, arguing that a judge on a multimember panel should never "vote against the result of his or her own reasoning by deferring to a majority on a sub-issue on which the judge differs." We responded, arguing in favor of just such action, which we labeled "issue voting." We criticized Professor Rogers's preferred mode of multimember court adjudication, which we labeled "outcome voting," on the grounds that it provided limited guidance …

"Duel" Diligence: Second Thoughts About The Supremes As The Sultans Of Swing, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

We respond to Professor Lynn A. Baker's criticisms of our article, The Most Dangerous Justice: The Supreme Court at the Bar of Mathematics. Professor Baker fundamentally misunderstands our measure of Supreme Court voting power. Moreover, she erroneously presumes that the "median Justice" wields the bulk of the Court's power. Even if there were a median Justice, it is far from clear whether he would be the Most Dangerous Justice. We conclude with a clarification of the median voter theorem and its implications for the distribution of voting power within the Supreme Court.

The Most Dangerous Justice: The Supreme Court At The Bar Of Mathematics, Paul H. Edelman, Jim Chen

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

We analyze the relative voting power of the Justices based upon Supreme Court decisions during October Term 1994 and October Term 1995. We take two approaches, both based on ideas derived from cooperative game theory. One of the measures we use has been used in connection with voting rights cases. After naming the Most Dangerous Justice, we conclude by identifying and explaining the inverse relationship between seniority and voting power.

William J. Harbison, Ward Dewitt, Jr.

Vanderbilt Law Review

Those close to him knew Bill Harbison for much more than the great legal scholar that he was. For almost twenty years I had the good fortune to practice law with him and was privileged to be his friend for over forty years. He was, as everyone knows, an outstanding lawyer and judge, but perhaps many do not know the non-legal side of Bill Harbison. In no particular order, Bill was a churchman, a sports enthusiast, a gardener, a historian, a fisherman, a lover of literature, and above all a devoted family man. For many years he was active at …

William J. Harbison, Thomas J. Sherrard, Iii

Vanderbilt Law Review

Bill joined Sherrard & Roe after his retirement from the Tennessee Supreme Court in the spring of 1990. Although I didn't appreciate it fully at the time, his arrival proved to be a defining event for our firm. To a group of practitioners in a growing law practice still trying to identify clearly our professional objectives and philosophy of practice, Justice Harbison served as an immediate and constant exemplar of those qualities and attributes that we most admired and that we knew should be perpetuated in our firm.

Of course, we all knew before Bill Harbison joined our firm that …

The Presumption Of Reviewability: A Study In Canonical Construction And Its Consequences, Daniel B. Rodriguez

Vanderbilt Law Review

The much-maligned canons of statutory construction stubbornly have survived, largely on the strength of the assertion that whatever the aim of the statute's interpretation, an interpretive canon will improve the chances that the statute's aim will be realized. Canonical construction serves two different functions. Some of the canons ostensibly are designed as short-cuts to the discovery of the legislature's "true" intent. Professor Geoffrey Miller has explained how the canons may reflect the judicial articulations of conversational conventions that help courts understand otherwise vexing statutory language.' Canons may also serve as surrogates for other, better evidence of legislators' intent. In this …

Comparative Overview Of Service Of Process: United States, Japan, And Attempts At International Unity, Chin Kim, Eliseo Z. Sisneros

Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law

This Article examines the differing philosophical and legal requirements for service of process in the United States and Japan. Professor Kim and Mr. Sisneros compare service of process laws in the United States, where compliance with the due process clause of the United States Constitution is a fundamental requirement, with service of process laws in Japan, where service of process is an official act of the judiciary. A detailed analysis of valid service of process by a foreign state in Japan follows. The authors then discuss the effect of the Bilateral Consular Convention Between the United States and Japan and …