21451500436_c45e4b442b_z

Yesterday, we began our review of the Court’s voting dynamics, analyzing the Justices’ agreement rates in non-unanimous civil cases between 2000 and 2004.  Today, we turn to the Court’s agreement rates in non-unanimous criminal cases.

We showed yesterday that Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Freeman in civil cases.  That was true on the criminal side as well (90.32% in 2000, 87.5% in 2001, 90.63% in 2002, 100% in 2003 and 76.92% in 2004).  She also voted quite similarly to Justice Rarick in criminal cases (100% in 2002, 84.62% in 2003, 90.91% in 2004).  For 2000, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justices Freeman and Bilandic (70.49%), and least often with Justice Heiple (59.68%) and Chief Justice Harrison (40.32%).  For 2001, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Freeman and Justice Fitzgerald (79.17%), and least often with Justices Miller and Kilbride (50% each) and Chief Justice Harrison (41.67%).  For 2002, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Freeman, Justice Fitzgerald (75%) and Justice Garman (70.97%), and least often with Justice Kilbride (50%) and Chief Justice Harrison (14.29%).  For 2003, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justices Freeman and Rarick (84.62%), and least often with Justices Garman, Thomas and Kilbride (26.67%, 26.67% and 23.33%, respectively).  For 2004, Chief Justice McMorrow voted most often with Justice Rarick (90.91%) and least often with Justice Thomas (38.46%).

Table 400

In Table 401, we report data for Justices Miller and Freeman.  In 2000, Justice Miller voted 80% of the time in non-unanimous criminal cases with Justice Bilandic, 75.41% of the time with Justice Rathje, but only 27.42% of the time with Chief Justice Harrison.  Justice Freeman voted roughly half the time with Justice Heiple (58.73% in 2000) and Justice Kilbride (58.33% in 2001, 53.13% in 2002, 23.33% in 2003, 76.92% in 2004), more often with Justice Rathje (70.49% in 2000), and less often with Chief Justice Harrison (38.1% in 2000, 45.83% in 2001, 19.05% in 2002).  Justice Freeman voted with Justice Thomas about two-thirds of the time in 2001 and 2002 (66.67% in 2001, 65.63% in 2002), but that figure fell off sharply in the two years that followed (26.67% in 2003, 30.77% in 2004).

Table 401

On the other hand, Justice Freeman voted quite similarly to the remaining three Justices reported on Table 402.  He voted with Justice Rarick in 100% of criminal cases in 2002, 84.62% in 2003 and 90.91% in 2004.  He voted with Justice Bilandic in 77.05% of non-unanimous criminal cases in 2000.  He voted with Justice Fitzgerald 87.5% of the time in 2001, 78.13% in 2002 and 80% in 2003.  Justice Heiple voted 78.69% of the time with Justice Rathje, with Justice Bilandic 73.77% of the time, but with Chief Justice Harrison only 30.16% of the time.  Justice Rathje voted with Justice Bilandic 83.05% of the time, but with Chief Justice Harrison in only 36.07% of non-unanimous criminal cases in 2000.  Chief Justice Harrison voted with Justice Bilandic in 34.43% of non-unanimous criminal cases in 2000, and with Justice Fitzgerald 45.83% of the time in 2001, and 28.57% in 2002.  Justice Garman voted with Justice Freeman about two-thirds of the time in 2001 and 2002 (75% in 2001, 67.74% in 2002), but much less often after (26.67% in 2003, 54.55% in 2004).  Justice Garman seldom voted with Chief Justice Harrison in criminal cases (18.75% in 2001, 25% in 2002).

Table 402

Just as we saw in the civil cases, Justice Garman voted quite similarly to Justice Thomas in these years (93.75% in 2001, 96.77% in 2002, 90% in 2003, 81.82% in 2004).  Justice Garman voted almost as often with Justice Fitzgerald in 2001 and 2002 (87.5% in 2001, 90.32% in 2002), but far less often in the following two years (50% in 2003, 54.55$ in 2004).  Justice Garman voted less than half the time with Justice Kilbride (37.5% in 2001, 22.58% in 2002, 50% in 2003, 63.64% in 2004) and Justice Rarick (50% in 2002, 26.92% in 2003 and 70% in 2004).  Justice Kilbride voted relatively closely with Chief Justice Harrison (70.83% in 2001, 71.43% in 2002), and for the most part with Justice Rarick (100% in 2002, 26.92% in 2003, 81.82% in 2004).  But he voted less than half the time in criminal cases with Justice Thomas (37.5% in 2001, 18.75% in 2002, 56.67% in 2003, 38.46% in 2004) and Justice Fitzgerald (58.33% in 2001, 31.25% in 2002, 20% in 2003, 60% in 2004).  Justice Thomas voted with Justice Fitzgerald in half to three quarters of all criminal cases during these years (79.17% in 2001, 87.5% in 2002, 50% in 2003 and 2004), but seldom voted with Chief Justice Harrison (25% in 2001, 23.81% in 2002) or Justice Rarick (20% in 2002, 32% in 2003, 45.45% in 2004).  Justice Rarick’s agreement rate with Justice Fitzgerald was quite high for his first two complete years on the Court (84.62% in 2003, 87.5% in 2004).

Table 403

Join us back here next Tuesday as we begin our analysis of the Court’s voting dynamics during the years 2005-2009.

Image courtesy of Flickr by David Wilson (no changes).