Journal of Empirical Legal Studies最新文献

Previous studies of judgment and decision-making in adjudication have largely focused on juries and judges. This body of work demonstrated that legal training and professional experience sometimes affect attitudes and mitigate the susceptibility to cognitive biases, but often they do not. Relatively few experimental studies examined the decisions of prosecutors and defense lawyers, although they play a major role, especially in legal systems where prosecutors have a broad discretion in charging decisions, courts' discretion regarding sentencing is constrained, and plea bargains abound. This study directly compares laypersons, law students, and legal practitioners—including prosecutors and defense lawyers—in terms of their attitudes about the criminal justice system and their cognitive biases. It was found that the outcome bias and the anti-inference bias influenced all groups similarly, but an irrelevant anchor only impacted the decisions of laypersons and law students, and not those of legal professionals. Prosecutors were significantly more inclined to judge a behavior as negligent and reach factual conclusions supporting a conviction. However, the hypothesis that the susceptibility of prosecutors and defense lawyers to cognitive biases would be affected by their role was not borne out. The article considers possible explanations for the reported findings, and discusses their policy implications.

What is the effect of caseload volume on case outcome disparities based on a litigant's gender or ethnicity? This paper presents three nonexclusive mechanisms to explain possible effects. The first mechanism relates to a litigant's inclination to settle or withdraw claims; the second mechanism concerns the strategic preemption of appeals by judges; and the third mechanism relates to the implicit biases of judges. To document the effect and test the mechanisms, we exploited a natural, near-randomized experiment in the Israeli judicial framework. In 2012, six senior registrars were appointed to two of the country's six magistrate court districts. The choice of districts was not related to judicial performance. In these two districts, the civil caseload per judge was substantially reduced. We find that while this reduced caseload had a significant impact on the judicial process for all litigants, it had a particularly salient and beneficial effect on outcomes for female and Arab plaintiffs. The exogenous reduction in court caseloads was associated with positive effects for female Jewish plaintiffs in terms of the likelihood of winning the claim, recovery amount (from the claim), and cost-shifting outcomes. The change was also associated with positive effects for Arab female plaintiffs in terms of the likelihood of winning the claim and the recovery amount (from the claim). Finally, the reduction in caseloads was associated with a positive effect for Arab male plaintiffs in terms of the fraction of the claim that was recovered. Our findings suggest that when judges are able to invest more time and resources in resolving individual cases, they tend to be less influenced by stereotypes about gender and ethnicity. We discuss the contribution of our findings to the literature on judicial bias and the implications for different policies designed to reduce or manage congested courts.

Numerous studies have demonstrated that female and Black jurors are under-represented on juries in criminal cases, especially so when the prosecution seeks the death penalty. The primary, but not exclusive, way in which this happens is that prosecutors remove them from the jury pool through the exercise of peremptory challenges. The practice remains widespread despite the Supreme Court's decision more than 30 years ago holding that using such challenges in a racially (or gender based) discriminatory manner violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the years since, enforcement by the Supreme Court and state and federal courts has been uneven. However, in several recent cases, in finding that prosecutors struck Black venire persons because of their race, the Supreme Court relied in part on evidence that the prosecution questioned Black and White venire persons differently. The legal term of art for this practice is “disparate questioning.”

Starting around 2006, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) progressively reduced Medicare Fee-for-Service (M-FFS) payments for the principal noninvasive cardiac tests, when performed in a cardiologist office (Office), yet kept payments flat to increasing for the same tests, performed in the hospital-based outpatient (HBO) setting. This produced a growing gap between HBO and Office payments for the same tests, and thus an incentive for hospitals to acquire cardiology practices in order to move cardiac tests to the HBO location and capture the HBO/Office payment differential. We use difference-in-differences analysis, in which we compare national M-FFS trends in cardiac test location to those for a control group of several large, integrated Medicare Advantage (M-Adv) health systems over 2005–2015, which were not affected by these reimbursement changes, and provide evidence that these reimbursement changes led to a large shift in testing from Office to HBO. This shift was concurrent with a sharp rise in hospital-cardiologist integration. The rise in integration and the proportion of testing in HBO varied greatly across states. Independent practice remains viable in very large states, but is endangered in many states, and is all but extinct in a growing number of states.

Despite substantial recent developments in body-worn camera (BWC) research, little is known about the effect of BWC footage on downstream criminal justice actors and agencies. Analyzing both quantitative and qualitative survey responses taken from state prosecutors in Miami-Dade County (FL) in 2019, this study provides one of the most detailed examinations of prosecutors' experiences with BWC footage to date. Using descriptive analyses, ordinary least squares regressions, and structural equation modeling, we examine how the operational challenges associated with BWC footage affect the degree to which prosecutors use the footage and perceive it to be useful. Our results suggest that poor footage quality and delayed video transfer may limit the utility of BWC footage—and in turn—that lower perceptions of utility may reduce the formal usage of BWC footage in court. These findings differ across case-processing stages, however, with transfer delay affecting the utility of BWC video for charging decisions and footage quality affecting the utility of BWC video across multiple case processing stages. Implications and policy recommendations based on these results are discussed.

Occasionally, information about the inner workings of the Supreme Court is leaked to the press by insiders—clerks, or even justices themselves. These leaks reliably stoke controversy among commentators and academics alike who pontificate on the negative effect leaks have on the Court's institutional legitimacy. However, it is not immediately clear from existing theories whether populating the media environment with leaked information will affect public perceptions of the Court, let alone the direction of such effects. In this paper, we use an original survey combined with an original survey experiment to test the extent to which, if any, leaks influence legitimacy ascribed to the Supreme Court. Analysis shows a tightly-estimated null effect of leaks on public views on the Court.

This article aims at disentangling the effect of judges' gender, experience, and caseload in the assignment of restraining orders in IPV cases. Previous literature has independently looked at the effect of gender on judicial decisions and found that it becomes relevant in gender-related cases. However, we find that such effects are better understood in interaction with other contextual factors such as the experience of judges and the amount of work they face, because these determine the levels of uncertainty and information costs surrounding decisions. For our empirical analysis, we use data from on-duty pretrial court decisions on restraining orders in Spain between 2010 and 2018. We find conditional effects of gender depending on experience and workload: more experienced female judges are more likely to grant protection orders than their male counterparts when the amount of caseload is high. These findings are relevant to understand the mechanisms behind judicial inequality under civil law systems, where judges' attributes tend to be unobservable by institutional design.

What does the public think it means to “settle” a civil case? Most legal disputes in the United States end in an agreement to settle, but little is known about what laypeople think about settlement. To fill this gap, we took a direct approach: we asked a nationally representative sample of US adults—more than 1000 of them—basic questions about settlement. We found widespread understanding about the essential nature and frequency of settlement, but persistent, though not universal, misconceptions about the details, including the role of a jury and settlement scope. Because settlement is such a pervasive part of the US legal system, the system's legitimacy turns in part on how the public understands and views civil settlement. The survey reported here provides a foundational study of the understandings and framework—the schemas—that the public bring to settlement.

Hakstian, A.-M., Evett, S. R., Hoffmann, J. S., Marshall, J. M., Boyland, E. A. L., & Williams, J. D. (2022). Racial diversity and group decision-making in a mock jury experiment. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 19(4), 1253–1292. https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12335

In Hakstian et al. (2022), there were errors in Figures 2 and 3, published on Page 1271, the y-axis and the corresponding values on each bar have incorrect commas between the hundred thousand place. The corrected Figures 2 and 3 appear below.

We apologize for these errors.