Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals

We investigate the influence of subject matter expertise, opinion specialization, and judicial experience on the role of ideology in decision making in the courts of appeals in a generalized, as opposed to specialized, setting. We find that subject matter experts and opinion specialists are significantly more likely to engage in ideological decision making than their nonspecialist counterparts and that opinion specialization is a particularly potent factor in ideological decision making. Further, increased judicial experience has no effect on the conditional use of ideology. We discuss the potentially wide‐ranging implications of our findings for both theory and policy.     

Expertise,Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

What roles do prior expertise and accumulated experience play in shaping ideologically consistent voting on a specialized court? Using a dataset of obviousness patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit spanning 1997–2007, we show that prior expertise enhances the influence of ideology on judicial decisionmaking, but that accumulated experience does not. In addition, we build on previous work and show that ideology is a factor in decisionmaking in technical areas of law, contrary to the received wisdom on patent cases.     

Power,National Security and Transparency: Judicial Decision Making and Social Architecture in the Federal Courts

Even in a democratic society, the need for transparency must be balanced with an important countervailing interest: the occasional, legitimate need for government secrecy. This article, based on an examination of opinions in federal cases dealing with national security and transparency, explores how judges identified the main legal issues presented by a case and the legal factors or mode of legal interpretation used to reach or justify their conclusions. The article concludes that many of these opinions are as much about judges’ attempts to balance the judicial branch's power with the powers of the executive and legislative branches as they are about national security and transparency. Furthermore, the article contends these opinions have created an “architecture of power” that determines how national security information is controlled. The final section also suggests that judges should be mindful of the original architecture of power established by the Constitution and the First Amendment when writing their opinions.     

Courts,Criminal Process,and AIDS: The Institutionalization of Culture in Legal Decision Making*

This study views legal process as part of an interactive web of social and cultural relationships. While law may create public policy, its own creation is part of a complex system of institutional deference and subjective behaviors which reflect a larger cultural context. The fears engendered by AIDS help to highlight the underlying cultural biases and patterns of disease scare management ingrained in legal policymaking. These patterns are again enhanced when placed in a criminal context where the resident focus is one of controlling those who precipitate anxiety. Using a method of qualitative comparative analysis, this study concludes that the historical patterns of bias and institutional deference in disease scare management continues in modern criminal court process.     

Institutional Arrangements and the Dynamics of Agenda Formation in the U.S. Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals

The manner in which agenda change occurs demonstrates how institutional arrangements influence agenda priorities in the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals. A neo-institutional theoretic perspective is employed to examine the dynamics of agenda formation in these courts. The article finds that the Supreme Court's agenda choices influence the decisions of litigants, interest groups, and lawyers to appeal certain cases to the Courts of Appeals. While the Supreme Court's agenda primarily is influenced by internal factors, it is constrained by agenda changes in the appeals courts. Critically, it is shown that these federal appellate courts exist within an endogenous system with respect to agenda formation, as both courts respond to agenda changes made in the other over time.     

The “Production” of Corruption in China's Courts: Judicial Politics and Decision Making in a One‐Party State

Despite its rampant presence, judicial corruption in China has often been regarded as the idiosyncratically deviant behavior of a few black sheep eluding prescribed judicial conduct. This entrenched assumption has both discouraged in‐depth investigation of the phenomenon of judicial corruption and inhibited proper understanding of the functioning of China's courts. This article, based on an empirically grounded examination of the processing of court rulings tainted by corruption, showed that judicial corruption in China is an institutionalized activity systemically inherent in the particular decision‐making mechanism guided by the Chinese Communist Party's instrumental rule‐by‐law ideal. In investigating what has contributed to the institutionalization of judicial corruption, the interplay between law and party politics in China's courts was also examined. The findings, therefore, also shed light on behind‐the‐courtroom judicial activities and on the enduring perplexity of the gap between the law in the book and the law in action.     

美国量刑理论中的关注焦点理论

关注焦点理论是美国刑事司法领域解释量刑差异的主流理论。该理论认为,法官和其他刑事司法系统的决策者在作出量刑决定时有三个关注焦点:罪犯的可谴责性、人身危险性,以及实践中的可操作性。由于法官在量刑时缺乏完整的信息,因此使用"感官速记"把对这三个焦点的关注转化为对性别、年龄、种族等表面信息的关注,导致"类案不同判"。对关注焦点的研究,在理论上有助于理解司法过程中量刑差异的产生原因,在实践中有助于解决量刑不规范的问题。通过介绍美国的关注焦点理论,以及这个理论框架下的实证研究和对关注焦点理论的评论,反思对我国量刑理论和实践的借鉴意义。     

Class Jurisprudes: Free Labor Ideology and For‐Profit Penal Labor in Gilded Age Courts

For‐profit penal servitude flourished in Gilded Age America. Prisoners produced consumer goods inside factory‐penitentiaries for private enterprise. Regulations protecting free labor encountered litigation by businesses invested in carceral capitalism. Judges who defended “liberty of contract,” maintained “state neutrality,” and condemned “class legislation” exhibited a different approach when evaluating labeling laws. Such statutes were seemingly consonant with the free labor ideology that dominated appellate benches—they remediated markets distorted by state‐created privileges. Yet courts routinely struck them down. This article argues that judges were motivated by a class‐infused framework structuring interpretation of facts and aliening lower‐class Americans. Judges perceived workingmen who sought remedial assistance as seeking class legislation; they saw prison inmates and products as ordinary workers and goods, not as captive manpower and state‐subsidized wares. Jurisprudence bent and bowed from judges’ values and associations. This article thus reintroduces the explanatory power of class to the Lochner era through judicial subjectivity.     

Strategic Anticipation of En Banc Review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

The quest for empirical evidence of strategic judicial behavior has produced mixed results. This study finds such evidence in the decisions made while crafting an opinion. Central to any opinion is which precedents are cited and whether their scope is limited (negative treatment) or expanded (positive treatment). I look for evidence of strategic anticipation of en banc review in these decisions using an original dataset of published search and seizure cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1953 to 2010. A panel is less likely to negatively treat a precedent with which the full circuit is more closely aligned. Circuit preferences also have an effect on citation itself, but only when the panel is at least moderately aligned with a precedent. Moreover, the panel's own ideology is only a significant predictor of citation when the full circuit is favorably disposed toward a particular precedent.     

Group Differences in Fairness Perceptions and Decision Making in Voting Rights Cases

Participants recruited from one Historically Black University (HBU) and two predominantly White higher-education institutions evaluated and decided simulated voting rights case summaries in which the plaintiff was either a racially-defined (African American) or a nonracially-defined (farmers) minority group. Contrary to social identity and social justice findings of an in-group bias, the present study showed greater support at all institutions for the voting rights of the African Americans than for the rural farmers, and the greatest support for both minority groups was found at the HBU. Perceived evidence strength was a better predictor of decisions than perceived unfairness, and both of these predictor variables completely mediated the effects of institution-type and involvement of a racially-defined group on decisions.     

Human Factors Effecting Forensic Decision Making: Workplace Stress and Well‐being

Over the past decade, there has been a growing openness about the importance of human factors in forensic work. However, most of it focused on cognitive bias, and neglected issues of workplace wellness and stress. Forensic scientists work in a dynamic environment that includes common workplace pressures such as workload volume, tight deadlines, lack of advancement, number of working hours, low salary, technology distractions, and fluctuating priorities. However, in addition, forensic scientists also encounter a number of industry‐specific pressures, such as technique criticism, repeated exposure to crime scenes or horrific case details, access to funding, working in an adversarial legal system, and zero tolerance for “errors”. Thus, stress is an important human factor to mitigate for overall error management, productivity and decision quality (not to mention the well‐being of the examiners themselves). Techniques such as mindfulness can become powerful tools to enhance work and decision quality.     

Fairness and Health Care Decision Making: Testing the Group Value Model of Procedural Justice

Considerable research has supported the notion that procedural justice is important to individuals independent of outcome considerations. Tyler and his associates (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Lind and Earley, 1992; Tyler, 1989) proposed that this is so because procedural justice serves a group value function. In the present research, we explored aspects of this group value formulation in a real life health care context. Specifically, we assessed the relationship between individuals' appraisals of procedural justice following health care treatment decisions as well as (i) expectations for different consequences to self; (ii) estimates of how they were viewed by the health care authorities; (iii) attributions about the reasons for their treatment; and (iv) ratings of emotional reactions. Results confirmed many components of the relational, group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988; Lind and Earley, 1992; Tyler, 1989). Specifically, respondents who felt that they had been treated fairly expected that their status and their relationship with the health care decision maker and others in their health care group would improve; perceived that the health care decision maker would rate them positively on a variety of personality dimensions; felt that the health care decision maker's interactions with them revealed quite a lot about the decision-maker's personality characteristics; and indicated increased levels of pride and pleasure as well as lower levels of anger as a result of their treatment. Results were discussed from several frameworks including Markus and Kitayama's (1991) concept of the independent and the interdependent self.     

Gender,Critical Mass,and Judicial Decision Making

We examine the role of gender in legal decision making by applying critical mass theory to the U.S. federal district courts. We analyze whether behavioral differences manifest themselves in the decision‐making proclivities of male and female judges, contingent on the existence of a critical mass of female judges at a court point (i.e., each city in which a district court is located). Our results indicate that women jurists exhibit distinctive behavior in certain cases when there is a critical mass of women at a court point. These differences are most significant in criminal justice cases; modest differences between men and women are also identified in civil rights and liberties cases. Gender is not significant in labor and economic regulation cases. These findings suggest that the increasing presence of women on the federal bench could have substantial policy ramifications in the American polity.     

Death Qualification in Black and White: Racialized Decision Making and Death‐Qualified Juries

Death qualification has been shown to have a number of biasing effects that appear to undermine a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury. Attitudes toward the death penalty have shifted modestly but consistently over the last several decades in ways that may have changed the overall impact of death qualification. Specifically, the very large gap between black and white Americans' current support for capital punishment raises the question of whether death qualification procedures disproportionately exclude African Americans from capital jury participation. In order to examine this possibility, we conducted two countywide death penalty attitude surveys in the California county that has the highest percentage of African American residents in the state. Results show that death qualification continues to have a number of serious biasing effects—including disproportionately excluding death penalty opponents—which result in the significant underrepresentation of African Americans. This creates a death‐qualified jury pool with the potential to be significantly more likely to ignore and even misuse mitigating factors and to rely more heavily on aggravating factors in their death penalty decision making. The implications of these findings for the fair administration of capital punishment are discussed.     

Is the Sum Greater than Its Parts? Circuit Court Composition and Judicial Behavior in the Courts of Appeals

Building on strategic models and the collegial nature of the U.S. courts of appeals, this article assesses the influence of a circuits' composition on individual judges' behaviors and the president's role in shaping the courts. As partisanship is one of the few signals of a nominee's ideology known to an executive administration at the time of appointment, it is important to measure partisan composition as a factor in individual behavior as well as other measures of overall ideology of the circuit. This article finds that the composition of the circuits influences individual behavior, even after controlling for individual ideology, panel effects, and other contextual factors. This remains true whether we examine composition based on partisanship or on more nuanced ideological measures. Noting that presidents, on average, create new partisan majorities within two circuits per four‐year term, these findings suggest turnover on circuit courts may have influences on case outcomes outside of a particular new appointee's voting record.     

Multimethod Resolution of a Small‐Scale Case of Commingling

This study highlights the use of multiple methods for resolving a case of commingled human remains. Skeletal remains were located in a marijuana field in rural northern California by law enforcement. Although initially buried in shallow graves, the remains of two decedents were disturbed by large carnivores and scattered over a wide area. The remains were submitted by law enforcement for forensic anthropological analysis and resolution of commingling. To segregate the remains of the two individuals, a number of methods were employed, including: (i) physical matching of fragmented remains; (ii) articulation to evaluate joint congruence; (iii) visual pair‐matching of bilateral elements; (iv) osteometric pair‐matching; (v) evaluation of taphonomic patterns; (vi) DNA analysis; and (vii) portable X‐ray spectrometry (pXRF). This multimethod approach resulted in accurate resolution of the commingling and facilitated reconstruction of the biological profiles, taphonomic patterns, and trauma analysis for each individual.