Today, we start the second part of our ongoing analysis of agreement rates among the Justices since 1990 – the criminal docket. We proceed just as we did with the civil docket, tracking agreement rates in non-unanimous cases. “Disagreement” is defined as two Justices not voting exactly the same way with respect to the judgment – in other words, if one Justice votes to affirm and another to affirm in part and reverse in part, that’s a disagreement. On the other hand, when the second Justice votes to affirm but files a special concurrence saying that he or she disagrees with some or all of the majority’s rationale, that’s still agreement with respect to the result. Finally, because the Court had significant turnover in its members during the 1990s, we expect the numbers to be a bit more volatile during that period than the Court’s most recent years. We begin with the years 1990 to 1995.
Justice Calvo had an agreement rate of 100% with Justice Bilandic, and 81.82% with Justice Ward. Justice Clark’s agreement rates show his philosophy closest to Justice Freeman (71.88%), Justice Bilandic (70.37%), Justice Calvo (68.42%), Justice Cunningham (68.18%) and Justice Moran (65.91%). His agreement rate with Justice Ward was 50%. His agreement rate with Justices Stamos and Ryan was identical – 41.67%). His agreement rate with Justice Heiple was 29.63%, and with Justice Miller, it was even lower: 18.18%. Justices Cunningham and Bilandic had an agreement rate of 81.82%, and Justices Bilandic and Freeman were at 63.33%.
Justices Freeman and Calvo had an agreement rate of 87.5%. His rate was in the seventies with two Justices – Nickels (79.03%) and Moran (78.13%). His agreement rate with Justice Cunningham was 68.18%, and with Justice Harrison, it was 67.21%. Justices Freeman and Heiple had an agreement rate of 48.89%. That number was comparatively low compared to Justice Heiple’s agreement rates with other colleagues: Justice Nickels, 61.29%; Justice Moran, 59.26%; Justice Cunningham, 57.14%; and Justice Calvo, 50%. His agreement rate with Justice Harrison was 36.07%. Justice Harrison’s agreement rate with Justice Bilandic was nearly identical – 41.27%. Justice McMorrow had an agreement rate with Justice Freeman of 67.74%, and with Justice Bilandic of 62.9%.
Justice McMorrow had an agreement rate with Justice Nickels of 85.25%. Her rate with Justice Harrison was 61.67%, with Justice Miller, 54.84%, and with Justice Heiple, 48.39%. Justice Miller had two agreement rates for this period in the sixties, with Justices Nickels and Heiple (67.74% and 65.56%, respectively). His agreement rate was in the fifties with six different Justices – Bilandic, 56.67%; Freeman, 55.79%; Cunningham, 54.55%; Moran, 52.27%; Ryan and Stamos (both 50%). His agreement rate with Justice Calvo was 42.11% and with Justice Harrison, 39.34%.
Justice Moran’s agreement rate with Justice Cunningham was 95.45%, and with Justice Ward, 91.67%. His agreement rate with Justice Calvo was 84.21%, and with Justice Bilandic, 81.82%. Justice Nickels had an agreement rate with Justice Harrison of 66.67%. His agreement rate with Justice Bilandic during these years was 59.68%. Justice Ryan had an agreement rate of 75% with Justice Ward and 72.73% with Justice Calvo. Justice Ryan’s agreement rate with Justice Moran was 66.67%. Justice Stamos had an agreement rate of 91.67% with Justice Ward, a rate of 83.33% with both Justices Moran and Ryan, and of 72.73% with Justice Calvo.
Join us back here next Tuesday as we address two more periods in the criminal docket – 1996-2001 and 2002-2007.