Yesterday, we reviewed the data on Chief Justice Karmeier’s questions in civil cases between 2008 and 2016. Today, we take a look at a different side of the data – what can we infer when the Chief Justice asks the first question to either side in criminal cases?
Voting against a party did not make
Last week, we looked at what can be inferred from the patterns of Chief Justice Karmeier’s questions in civil cases between 2008 and 2016. This week, we look at the Chief Justice’s questioning in criminal cases.
In Table 497, we report the data for the Chief’s patterns when voting in the majority. Like most appellate
Yesterday, we began our analysis of the Chief Justice’s question patterns in civil cases from 2008 through 2016. Today, we address the Chief Justice’s patterns in criminal cases.
When voting with the majority in an affirmance, the Chief Justice begins the questioning of appellants in 13.68% of cases. There’s a 12.63% chance he’ll ask the
For the past two weeks, we’ve been reviewing Justice Thomas’ question patterns in oral arguments since 2008, and whether it’s possible to infer his likely vote and whether he’s writing an opinion. This week, we turn to Chief Justice Karmeier’s patterns in civil cases.
Chief Justice Karmeier has voted with the majority in 95 cases
Yesterday, we analyzed whether it’s possible to infer Justice Thomas’ vote and whether or not he’s writing an opinion based upon the pattern of his questions in criminal cases. Today, we look at whether it’s more likely that Justice Thomas will ask the first question in criminal cases, based upon his vote and whether he’s
Last week, we analyzed the pattern of Justice Thomas’ questions in oral arguments in civil cases. This week, we address Justice Thomas’ patterns in criminal cases.
When Justice Thomas is in the majority, he questions the losing side more heavily than the party which will lose the case. Justice Thomas has written the majority opinion
Yesterday, we analyzed whether we can infer Justice Thomas’ votes and whether or not he’s writing an opinion based upon the pattern of his questions at oral arguments in civil cases. Today, we ask a different question – when Justice Thomas asks the first question in a civil case, does it mean he’s writing the
Last week, we completed our two-week examination of Justice Kilbride’s patterns in oral arguments for civil and criminal cases between 2008 and 2016. Today, we begin our examination of Justice Thomas’ patterns.
In Table 485, we report the data on Justice Thomas’ question patterns when voting in the majority. Both when the Court affirms and
Yesterday, we analyzed whether it’s possible, based on all oral arguments in criminal cases between 2009 and 2016, to infer from watching Justice Kilbride’s question patterns in criminal cases how he’s voting, and whether he’s writing an opinion. Today, we ask the same question based on whether or not Justice Kilbride asks the first question.
Last week, we analyzed the pattern of Justice Kilbride’s questions in oral arguments in civil cases, asking whether it’s possible to infer who Justice Kilbride will vote for and whether or not he’s writing an opinion. This week, we do the same for the Court’s criminal cases between 2008 and 2016.
Overall, Justice Kilbride has