1932
0
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Annual Review of Law and Social Science
  4. Volume 13, 2017
  5. Article

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volume 13, 2017

Judging the Judiciary by the Numbers: Empirical Research on Judges

Abstract

Do judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extralegal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges' decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably toward litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that influence ordinary adults. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that judges are vulnerable to systematic deviations from the ideal of judicial impartiality.

Keyword(s): courts, judges, judicial decision making
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032
2017-10-13
2024-04-26
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/13/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrams DS, Bertrand M, Mullainathan S. 2012. Do judges vary in their treatment of race?. J. Legal Stud. 41:2347–83 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albonetti CA. 1997. Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses. Law Soc. Rev. 31:4789–822 [Google Scholar]
  3. Allen DW, Wall DE. 1987. The behavior of women state supreme court justices: Are they tokens or outsiders?. Justice Syst. J. 12:2232–44 [Google Scholar]
  4. Am. Bar Assoc. 2011. Model Code of Judicial Conduct Washington, DC:: Am. Bar Assoc.
  5. Am. Law Inst. 2009. Restatement (Third) of Torts Philadelphia: Am. Law Inst.
  6. Anderson JC, Lowe DJ, Reckers PMJ. 1993. Evaluation of auditor decisions: hindsight bias effects and the expectation gap. J. Econ. Psychol. 14:4711–37 [Google Scholar]
  7. Ariely D. 2009. Predictably Irrational: The Hidden Forces that Shape Our Decisions New York: HarperCollins
  8. Aspin LT. 2007. Retention elections and evaluations: A response to current trends in contested judicial elections?. Future Trends in State Courts C Flango 104–9 Washington, DC: Natl. Cent. State Courts [Google Scholar]
  9. Ayres I, Waldfogel J. 1994. A market test for race discrimination in bail setting. Stanford Law Rev 46:5987–1047 [Google Scholar]
  10. Baum L. 1997. The Puzzle of Judicial Behavior Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  11. Beattey R, Matsuura T, Jeglic EL. 2014. Judicial bond setting behavior: The perceived nature of the crime may matter more than how serious it is. Psychol. Public Policy Law 20:4411–20 [Google Scholar]
  12. Beebe B. 2006. An empirical study of the multifactor tests for trademark infringement. Calif. Law Rev. 94:61581–654 [Google Scholar]
  13. Beebe B. 2008. An empirical study of U.S. copyright fair use opinions, 1978–2005. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 156:3549–624 [Google Scholar]
  14. Blanck PD, Rosenthal R, Cordell LH. 1985. The appearance of justice: judges' verbal and nonverbal behavior in criminal jury trials. Stanford Law Rev 38:189–164 [Google Scholar]
  15. Block BP. 1991. Just convictions or just convictions?. Issues Criminol. Legal Psychol. 1:1720–24 [Google Scholar]
  16. Blume JH, Eisenberg T. 1999. Judicial politics, death penalty appeals, and case selection: an empirical study. South. Calif. Law Rev. 72:2/3465–503 [Google Scholar]
  17. Booker v. United States 543 U.S. 220 2005.
  18. Bornstein BH, Miller ML. 2009. Does a judge's religion influence decision making?. Court Rev 45:3112–15 [Google Scholar]
  19. Boyd CL. 2013. She'll settle it?. J. Law Courts 1:2193–219 [Google Scholar]
  20. Boyd CL. 2016. Representation on the courts? The effects of trial judges' sex and race. Political Res. Q. 69:49788–99 [Google Scholar]
  21. Boyd CL, Epstein L, Martin AD. 2010. Untangling the causal effects of sex on judging. Am. J. Political Sci. 54:2389–411 [Google Scholar]
  22. Boyd CL, Spriggs JF. 2009. An examination of strategic anticipation of appellate court preferences by federal district court judges. Wash. Univ. J. Law Policy 29:137–80 [Google Scholar]
  23. Brace P, Hall MG, Langer L. 1999. Judicial choice and the politics of abortion: institutions, context, and the autonomy of courts. Albany Law Rev 62:21265–303 [Google Scholar]
  24. Burch T. 2015. Skin color and the criminal justice system: beyond black-white disparities in criminal sentencing. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 12:3395–420 [Google Scholar]
  25. Bushway SD, Owens EG, Piehl AM. 2012. Sentencing guidelines and judicial discretion: quasi-experimental evidence from human calculation errors. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 9:2291–319 [Google Scholar]
  26. Byrne v. Boadle (Exch. 1863) 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng. Rep. 299
  27. Cameron C, Cummings C. 2003. Diversity and judicial decision making: evidence from affirmative action cases in the federal courts of appeals, 1971–1999 Presented at Crafting Oper. Inst. Conf., April 11–13 , Yale Univ New Haven, CT:
  28. Cann DM. 2007. Justice for sale? Campaign contributions and judicial decisionmaking. State Politics Policy Q 7:3281–97 [Google Scholar]
  29. Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. 556 U.S. 868 2009.
  30. Chen D, Moskowitz TJ, Shue K. 2016. Decision-making under the gambler's fallacy: evidence from asylum judges, loan officers, and baseball umpires. Q. J. Econ. 131:31181–242 [Google Scholar]
  31. Chew PK, Kelley RE. 2009. Myth of the color-blind judge: an empirical analysis of racial harassment cases. Wash. Univ. Law Rev. 86:51117–66 [Google Scholar]
  32. Chew PK, Kelley RE. 2013. The realism of race in judicial decision making: an empirical analysis of plaintiffs' race and judges' race. Harvard J. Racial Ethn. Justice 28:191–113 [Google Scholar]
  33. Cohen MA. 1991. Explaining judicial behavior or what's “unconstitutional” about the sentencing commission. J. Law Econ. Organ. 7:1183–99 [Google Scholar]
  34. Cox AB, Miles TJ. 2008. Judging the Voting Rights Act. Columbia Law Rev 108:11–54 [Google Scholar]
  35. Daftary-Kapur T, Penrod SD, O'Connor M, Wallace B. 2014. Examining pretrial publicity in a shadow jury paradigm: issues of slant, quantity, persistence and generalizability. Law Hum. Behav. 38:5462–77 [Google Scholar]
  36. Danziger S, Levav J, Avnaim-Pesso L. 2011. Extraneous factors in judicial decisions. PNAS 108:176889–92 [Google Scholar]
  37. Davis S. 1986. The impact of President Carter's judicial selection reforms: a voting analysis of the United States Courts of Appeals. Am. Politics Q. 14:320–44 [Google Scholar]
  38. Dhami MK. 2003. Psychological models of professional decision-making. Psychol. Sci. 14:2175–80 [Google Scholar]
  39. Downs C, Lyons P. 1991. Natural observations of the links between attractiveness and initial legal judgments. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 17:5541–47 [Google Scholar]
  40. Ebbesen EB, Konečni VJ. 1975. Decision making and information integration in the courts: the setting of bail. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 32:5805–21 [Google Scholar]
  41. Ebbesen EB, Konečni VJ. 1982. An analysis of the sentencing system. The Criminal Justice System: A Social-Psychological Analysis VJ Konečni, EB Ebbesen 293–332 San Francisco: W.H. Freeman [Google Scholar]
  42. Eisenberg T, Miller GP. 2004. Attorney fees in class action settlements: an empirical study. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 1:127–78 [Google Scholar]
  43. Eisenberg T, Rachlinski JJ, Wells MT. 2002. Reconciling experimental incoherence with real-world coherence in punitive damages. Stanford Law Rev 54:61239–71 [Google Scholar]
  44. Englich B, Mussweiler T, Strack F. 2006. Playing dice with criminal sentences: the influence of irrelevant anchors on experts' judicial decision making. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32:2188–200 [Google Scholar]
  45. Epstein L. 2016. Some thoughts on the study of judicial behavior. William Mary Law Rev 57:62017–73 [Google Scholar]
  46. Epstein L, Knight J. 1997. The Choices Justices Make Washington, DC: CQ
  47. Epstein L, Knight J. 2013. Reconsidering judicial preferences. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 16:111–31 [Google Scholar]
  48. Epstein L, Landes WM, Posner RA. 2013. The Behavior of Federal Judges Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  49. Epstein L, Martin AD, Martin AW. 2004. Does age (really) matter? A response to Manning, Carroll, and Carp. Soc. Sci. Q. 85:119–30 [Google Scholar]
  50. Espinosa EM, Sorensen JR. 2016. The influence of gender and traumatic experiences on length of time served in juvenile justice settings. Crim. Justice Behav. 43:2187–203 [Google Scholar]
  51. Etienne M. 2010. Sentencing women: reassessing the claims of disparity. J. Gend. Race Justice 14:173–84 [Google Scholar]
  52. Everett RS, Nienstedt BC. 1999. Race, remorse and sentence reduction: Is saying you're sorry enough?. Justice Q 16:199–122 [Google Scholar]
  53. Farhang S, Wawro G. 2004. Institutional dynamics on the U.S. Court of Appeals: minority representation under panel decision making. J. Law Econ. Organ. 20:2299–330 [Google Scholar]
  54. Fariña F, Arce R, Novo M. 2003. Anchoring in judicial decision-making. Psychol. Spain 7:156–65 [Google Scholar]
  55. Fischman J. 2015. Interpreting circuit court voting patterns: a social interactions framework. J. Law Econ. Organ. 31:4808–42 [Google Scholar]
  56. Fischman JB, Schanzenbach MM. 2012. Racial disparities under the federal sentencing guidelines: the role of judicial discretion and mandatory minimums. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 9:4729–64 [Google Scholar]
  57. Fox R, Van Sickel R. 2000. Gender dynamics and judicial behavior in trial courts: an exploratory study. Justice Syst. J. 21:3261–80 [Google Scholar]
  58. Frank J. 1930. Law and the Modern Mind Paris: Brentano's
  59. Frank J. 1949. Courts on Trial: Myth and Reality in American Justice Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  60. Frederick S. 2005. Cognitive reflection and decision making. J. Econ. Perspect. 19:425–42 [Google Scholar]
  61. Gigerenzer G, Todd P. 1999. Fast and frugal heuristics. Simple Heuristics that Make Us Smart G Gigerenzer, P Todd, ABC Res. Group 1–17 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  62. Gilbert DT. 2002. Inferential correction. Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment T Gilovich, D Griffin, D Kahneman 167–84 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  63. Glynn A, Sen M. 2015. Identifying judicial empathy: Does having daughters cause judges to rule for women's issues?. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:137–54 [Google Scholar]
  64. Gottschall J. 1983. Carter's judicial appointments: the influence of affirmative action and merit selection in voting on the US Court of Appeals. Judicature 67:165–73 [Google Scholar]
  65. Gruhl J, Spohn C, Welch S. 1981. Women as policy makers: the case of trial judges. Am. J. Political Sci. 25:2308–22 [Google Scholar]
  66. Guthrie C, George TE. 2005. The futility of appeal: disciplinary insights into the “affirmance effect” on the United States Courts of Appeals. Fla. State Law Rev. 32:2357–86 [Google Scholar]
  67. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ. 2001. Inside the judicial mind. Cornell Law Rev 86:4777–830 [Google Scholar]
  68. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ. 2007. Blinking on the bench: how judges decide cases. Cornell Law Rev 93:11–43 [Google Scholar]
  69. Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ. 2009. The “hidden judiciary”: an empirical examination of executive branch justice. Duke Law J 58:71477–530 [Google Scholar]
  70. Helland E, Tabarrock A. 2002. The effect of electoral institutions on tort awards. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 4:2341–70 [Google Scholar]
  71. Helm RK, Wistrich AJ, Rachlinski JJ. 2016. Are arbitrators human?. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 13:4666–92 [Google Scholar]
  72. Holmes MD, Hosch HM, Daudistel HC, Perez DA, Graves JB. 1993. Judges' ethnicity and minority sentencing: evidence concerning Hispanics. Soc. Sci. Q. 74:3496–506 [Google Scholar]
  73. Huber GA, Gordon SC. 2004. Accountability and coercion: Is justice blind when it runs for office?. Am. J. Political Sci. 48:2247–63 [Google Scholar]
  74. Idelman SC. 2005. The concealment of religious values in judicial decisionmaking. Va. Law Rev. 91:2515–34 [Google Scholar]
  75. Jamieson KH, Hennessy M. 2007. Public understanding of and support for the courts: survey results. Georgetown Law J. 954899–902 [Google Scholar]
  76. Jones C, Rankin MB. 2015. Justice as a rounding error? Evidence of subconscious bias in second-degree murder sentences in Canada. Osgoode Hall Law J 52:1109–40 [Google Scholar]
  77. Kahneman D. 2011. Thinking Fast and Slow New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux
  78. Kahneman D, Tversky A. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychol. Rev. 80:4237–51 [Google Scholar]
  79. Kang MS, Shepherd JM. 2015. Partisanship in state supreme courts: the empirical relationship between party campaign contributions and judicial decision making. J. Legal Stud. 44:S1S161–85 [Google Scholar]
  80. Kastellec JP. 2013. Racial diversity and judicial influence on appellate courts. Am. J. Political Sci. 57:1167–83 [Google Scholar]
  81. Kaye DH. 1979. Probability theory meets res ipsa loquitur. Mich. Law Rev. 77:61456–84 [Google Scholar]
  82. King RD, Johnson BD. 2016. A punishing look: skin tone and Afrocentric features in the halls of justice. Am. J. Sociol. 122:190–124 [Google Scholar]
  83. Klein DE, Hume RJ. 2003. Fear of reversal as an explanation of lower court compliance. Law Soc. Rev. 37:3579–81 [Google Scholar]
  84. Kritzer HM, Uhlman TM. 1977. Sisterhood in the courtroom: sex of judge and defendant in criminal case disposition. Soc. Sci. Q. 14:177–88 [Google Scholar]
  85. Kunin CC, Ebbeson EB, Konecni VJ. 1992. An archival study of decision-making in child custody disputes. J. Clin. Psychol. 48:4564–73 [Google Scholar]
  86. Landsman S, Rakos RF. 1994. A preliminary inquiry into the effect of potentially biasing information on judges and jurors in civil litigation. Behav. Sci. Law 12:2113–26 [Google Scholar]
  87. Lappi-Seppälä T. 2001. Sentencing and punishment in Finland: the decline of the repressive ideal. Sentencing and Sanctions in Western Countries M Tonry, R Frase 92–150 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  88. Leibovitch A. 2016. Relative judgments. J. Legal Stud. 45:2281–330 [Google Scholar]
  89. Leifer D, Sample LL. 2010. Do judges follow sentencing recommendations, or do recommendations simply reflect what they want to hear? An examination of one state court. J. Crime Justice 33:2127–51 [Google Scholar]
  90. Lemley MA, Li S, Urban JM. 2014. Does familiarity breed contempt among judges deciding patent cases?. Stanford Law Rev 66:51121–58 [Google Scholar]
  91. Levy I. 2013. Lightening the overload of CPR Rule 3.9. Civil Justice Q 32:2139–52 [Google Scholar]
  92. Liberato L, Rutter K. 2003. Reasons for reversal in the Texas Courts of Appeals. South Tex. Law Rev. 44:431–81 [Google Scholar]
  93. Lim CS. 2015. Media influence on courts: evidence from civil case adjudication. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 17:187–126 [Google Scholar]
  94. Lim CS, Snyder JM Jr., Stromberg D. 2015. The judge, the politician, and the press: newspaper coverage and criminal sentencing across electoral systems. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 7:4103–35 [Google Scholar]
  95. Maccoby EE, Mnookin RH. 1992. Dividing the Child: Social & Legal Dilemmas of Custody Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  96. MacDonald JM, Chesney-Lind M. 2001. Gender bias and juvenile justice revisited: a multiyear analysis. Crime Delinq 47:2173–95 [Google Scholar]
  97. Maguire JM, Epstein CSS. 1927. Rules of evidence in preliminary controversies as to admissibility. Yale Law J 36:81101–25 [Google Scholar]
  98. Manning KL, Carroll BA, Carp RA. 2004. Does age matter? Judicial decision making in age discrimination cases. Soc. Sci. Q. 85:11–18 [Google Scholar]
  99. Maroney TA. 2011. The persistent cultural script of judicial dispassion. Calif. Law Rev. 99:2629–82 [Google Scholar]
  100. Maveety N. 2003. The Pioneers of Judicial Behavior Ann Arbor: Univ. Mich. Press
  101. McCall M. 2003. Gender, judicial dissent, and issue salience: the voting behavior of state supreme court justices in sexual harassment cases, 1980–1998. Soc. Sci. J. 40:179–97 [Google Scholar]
  102. Mitchell O. 2005. A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: explaining the inconsistencies. J. Quant. Criminol. 21:4439–66 [Google Scholar]
  103. Moran G, Cutler BL. 1991. The prejudicial impact of pre-trial publicity. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 21:5345–67 [Google Scholar]
  104. Mustard DB. 2001. Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. J. Law Econ. 44:1285–314 [Google Scholar]
  105. Nagel SS. 1962. Judicial backgrounds and criminal cases. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 53:3333–39 [Google Scholar]
  106. Oldfather CM. 2008. Writing, cognition, and the nature of the judicial function. Georgetown Law J 96:41283–345 [Google Scholar]
  107. Otto AL, Penrod SD, Dexter HR. 1994. The biasing impact of pre-trial publicity on juror judgment. Law Hum. Behav. 18:4453–69 [Google Scholar]
  108. Paradise J. 2012. The disparity between men and women in custody disputes: Is joint custody the answer to everyone's problems?. St. John's Law Rev. 72:2517–80 [Google Scholar]
  109. Parsons CA, Sulaeman J, Yates MC, Hamermesh DS. 2011. Strike three: umpires' demand for discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 101:41410–35 [Google Scholar]
  110. Perisie JL. 2005. Female judges matter: gender and collegial decisionmaking in the Federal Appellate Courts. Yale Law J 114:71759–90 [Google Scholar]
  111. Pinello DR. 1999. Linking party to judicial ideology in American courts: a meta-analysis. Justice Syst. J. 20:3219–54 [Google Scholar]
  112. Pinello DR. 2003. Gay Rights and American Law Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
  113. Posner RA. 2008. How Judges Think Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  114. Priest GL, Klein B. 1984. The selection of disputes for litigation. J. Legal Stud. 13:11–55 [Google Scholar]
  115. Rachlinski JJ, Guthrie C, Wistrich AJ. 2006. Inside the bankruptcy judge's mind. Boston Univ. Law Rev. 86:51227–65 [Google Scholar]
  116. Rachlinski JJ, Guthrie C, Wistrich AJ. 2013a. Contrition in the courtroom: Do apologies affect adjudication?. Cornell Law Rev 98:51189–244 [Google Scholar]
  117. Rachlinski JJ, Johnson SL, Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C. 2009. Does unconscious bias affect trial judges?. Notre Dame Law Rev 84:31195–246 [Google Scholar]
  118. Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C. 2011. Probability, probable cause, and hindsight. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 8:S172–98 [Google Scholar]
  119. Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C. 2013b. Altering attention in adjudication. UCLA Law Rev 60:61586–618 [Google Scholar]
  120. Rachlinski JJ, Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C. 2015. Can judges make reliable numeric judgments? Distorted damages and skewed sentences. Indiana Law J 90:2695–739 [Google Scholar]
  121. Ramji-Nogales J, Schoenholtz A, Schrag PG. 2007. Refugee roulette: disparities in asylum adjudication. Stanford Law Rev 60:2295–412 [Google Scholar]
  122. Randazzo KA. 2008. Strategic anticipation and the hierarchy of justice in the U.S. District Courts. Am. Political Res. 36:5669–93 [Google Scholar]
  123. Rehaag S. 2012. Judicial review of refugee determinations: The luck of the draw?. Queen's Law J 38:11–58 [Google Scholar]
  124. Robinson R. 2011. Does prosecutorial experience “balance out” a judge's liberal tendencies?. Justice Syst. J. 32:2143–66 [Google Scholar]
  125. Rosenblatt A, Greenberg J, Solomon S, Pyszczynski T, Lyon D. 1989. Evidence for terror management theory: I. The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who violate or uphold cultural values. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 57:4681–90 [Google Scholar]
  126. Ruback RB, Vardaman PJ. 1997. Decision making in delinquency cases: the role of race and juveniles' admission/denial of the crime. Law Hum. Behav. 21:147–69 [Google Scholar]
  127. Ryo E. 2016. Pretrial: a study of immigration bond hearings. Law Soc. Rev. 50:1117–53 [Google Scholar]
  128. Schanzenbach M. 2005. Racial and sex disparities in prison sentences: the effect of district-level judicial demographics. J. Legal Stud. 34:157–92 [Google Scholar]
  129. Schanzenbach MM, Tiller EH. 2006. Strategic judging under the U.S. sentencing guidelines: positive political theory and evidence. J. Law Econ. Organ. 23:124–56 [Google Scholar]
  130. Scott RW. 2011. Race disparity under advisory guidelines: dueling assessments and potential responses. Criminol. Public Policy 10:41129–38 [Google Scholar]
  131. Segal JA, Spaeth HJ. 2015. The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press
  132. Senate Comm. Judic. 2010. Confirmation Hearing on the Nomination of Elena Kagan to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States 111th Cong. 103 (statement of Elena Kagan, Supreme Court nomin.)
  133. Shepherd JM. 2009. The influence of retention politics on judges' voting. J. Legal Stud. 38:1169–206 [Google Scholar]
  134. Shepherd JM, Kang MS. 2011. The partisan price of justice: an empirical analysis of campaign contributions and judicial decisions. N.Y. Univ. Law Rev. 86:169–130 [Google Scholar]
  135. Sherif M, Taud D, Hovland CI. 1958. Assimilation and contrast effects of anchoring stimuli. J. Exper. Psychol. 55:2150–55 [Google Scholar]
  136. Sisk GC, Heise M. 2012. Muslims and religious liberty in the era of 9/11: empirical evidence from the federal courts. Iowa Law Rev 98:1231–91 [Google Scholar]
  137. Sisk GC, Heise M, Morriss AP. 1998. Charting the influences on the judicial mind: an empirical study of judicial reasoning. NYU Law Rev. 73:51377–500 [Google Scholar]
  138. Sisk GC, Heise M, Morriss AP. 2004. Searching for the soul of judicial decisionmaking: an empirical study of religious freedom decisions. Ohio State Law J 65:3491–614 [Google Scholar]
  139. Sommers SR, Ellsworth PC. 2001. White juror bias: an investigation of prejudice against black defendants in the American courtroom. Psychol. Public Policy Law 7:1201–29 [Google Scholar]
  140. Songer DR, Davis S, Haire S. 1994. A reappraisal of diversification in the federal courts: gender effects in the courts of appeals. J. Politics 56:2425–39 [Google Scholar]
  141. Songer DR, Ginn MR, Sarver T. 2003. Do judges follow the law when there is no fear of reversal?. Justice Syst. J. 24:3137–61 [Google Scholar]
  142. Songer DR, Tabrizi SJ. 1999. The religious right in court: the decision making of Christian Evangelicals in state supreme courts. J. Politics 61:2507–26 [Google Scholar]
  143. Sorauf FJ. 1976. The Wall of Separation: The Constitutional Politics of Church and State Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  144. Spamann H, Klöhn L. 2016. Justice is less blind, and less legalistic, than we thought: evidence from an experiment with real judges. J. Legal Stud. 45:2255–80 [Google Scholar]
  145. Spohn C. 1990. Decision making in sexual assault cases: Do black and female judges make a difference?. Women Crim. Justice 2:183–105 [Google Scholar]
  146. Spohn C. 2013. The effects of the offender's race, ethnicity, and sex on federal sentencing outcomes in the guidelines era. Law Contemp. Probl. 76:175–104 [Google Scholar]
  147. Spohn C, Gruhl J, Welch S. 1987. The impact of the ethnicity and gender of defendants on the decision to reject or dismiss felony charges. Criminology 25:1175–92 [Google Scholar]
  148. Starr S. 2012. Estimating gender disparities federal criminal cases. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 17:1127–59 [Google Scholar]
  149. Steblay N, Hosch H, Culhane S, McWethy A. 2006. The impact on juror verdicts of judicial instruction to disregard inadmissible evidence: a meta-analysis. Law Hum. Behav. 30:4469–92 [Google Scholar]
  150. Steffensmeier D, Britt CL. 2001. Judges' race and judicial decision making: Do black judges sentence differently?. Soc. Sci. Q. 82:4749–64 [Google Scholar]
  151. Steffensmeier D, Hebert C. 1999. Men and women policy makers: Does the judge's gender affect the sentencing of criminal defendants?. Soc. Forces 77:1163–96 [Google Scholar]
  152. Stewart JE. 1980. Defendant's attractiveness as a factor in the outcome of criminal trials: an observational study. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 10:3348–61 [Google Scholar]
  153. Stewart JE. 1985. Appearance and punishment: the attraction-leniency effect in the courtroom. J. Soc. Psychol. 125:3373–78 [Google Scholar]
  154. Strauss M. 1996. Sequestration. Am. J. Crim. Law 24:163–122 [Google Scholar]
  155. Sunstein CR, Schkade D, Ellman LM, Sawicki A. 2006. Are Judges Political? An Empirical Analysis of the Federal Judiciary Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Press
  156. Tate CN, Handberg R. 1991. Time binding and theory building in personal attribute models of Supreme Court voting behavior, 1916–88. Am. J. Political Sci. 35:2460–80 [Google Scholar]
  157. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:41571124–31 [Google Scholar]
  158. United States v. Ballard 322 U.S. 78, 93–94 1944. J Jackson, dissenting
  159. Viscusi WK. 1999. How do judges think about risk?. Am. Law Econ. Rev. 1:126–62 [Google Scholar]
  160. Walker TG, Barrow DJ. 1985. The diversification of the federal bench: policy and process ramifications. J. Politics 47:2596–617 [Google Scholar]
  161. Wallsten TS. 1981. Physician and medical student bias in evaluating diagnostic information. Med. Decis. Mak 11145–64 [Google Scholar]
  162. Wang X, Mears DP, Spohn C, Dari L. 2013. Assessing the differential effects of race and ethnicity on sentence outcomes under different sentencing systems. Crime Delinq 59:187–114 [Google Scholar]
  163. Wason PC. 1968. Reasoning about a rule. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 20:3273–81 [Google Scholar]
  164. Weber EU, Johnson EJ. 2009. Mindful judgment and decision making. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60:153–85 [Google Scholar]
  165. Weinberg JD, Nielsen LB. 2011. Examining empathy: discrimination, experience, and judicial decisionmaking. South. Calif. Law Rev. 85:2313–52 [Google Scholar]
  166. Weinshall-Margel K, Shapard J. 2011. Overlooked factors in the analysis of parole decisions. PNAS 108:42E833 [Google Scholar]
  167. Weisselberg CD, Dunworth T. 1993. Inter-district variation under the Guidelines: The trees may be more significant than the forest. Fed. Sentencing Rep 6125–28 [Google Scholar]
  168. Wissler RJ, Hart AJ, Saks MJ. 1999. Decisionmaking about general damages: a comparison of jurors, judges, and lawyers. Mich. Law Rev. 71:3751–821 [Google Scholar]
  169. Wistrich AJ. 2010. Defining good judging. The Psychology of Judicial Decision Making D Klein, G Mitchell 249–67 Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  170. Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C, Rachlinski JJ. 2005. Can judges ignore inadmissible information? The difficulty of deliberately disregarding. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 153:41251–385 [Google Scholar]
  171. Wistrich AJ, Rachlinski JJ. 2013. How lawyers' intuitions prolong litigation. South. Calif. Law Rev. 86:3571–603 [Google Scholar]
  172. Wistrich AJ, Rachlinski JJ, Guthrie C. 2015. Heart versus head: Do judges follow the law or follow their feelings?. Tex. Law Rev. 93:4855–923 [Google Scholar]
  173. Zebrowitz LA, McDonald SM. 1991. The impact of litigants' baby-facedness and attractiveness on adjudications in small claims courts. Law Hum. Behav. 15:6603–23 [Google Scholar]
  174. Zorn C, Bowie JB. 2010. Ideological influences on decision making in the federal judicial hierarchy: an empirical assessment. J. Politics 72:41212–21 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-085032
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article

Most Cited Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error