Over the past few weeks, we’ve been wrapping up this first year at the Illinois Supreme Court Review with a quick look at the questioning patterns at the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments in criminal, quasi-criminal and disciplinary cases decided to date in 2015, comparing that data to our conclusions earlier in the summer and
Criminal Arguments III: The First Question, Divided Decisions Below, and the Appellate District
Yesterday, we continued our quick trip through the arguments at the Illinois Supreme Court in criminal, quasi-criminal and disciplinary cases, analyzing whether oral argument can give us grounds for inferring the likely time under submission, the length of the majority opinion and how often the winning party gets more questions. Today we turn to three
Criminal Arguments II: Time Under Submission, Length of the Opinion and The Odds Against the Side Getting the Most Questions
Last week, we began a quick trip through the oral arguments of 2015 in criminal, quasi-criminal and disciplinary cases, comparing our insights to our results in the civil arguments between 2008 and 2014. In day two of our review today, we look at three more issues.
First, we present three scatter diagrams addressing our first
Are Arguments Different in Criminal Cases? Average Questions Per Segment
Today, we begin another phase of our data analytic look at the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments. Over the past five and a half months, we’ve reached a number of conclusions about what we can infer from oral argument about the likely result of a case and which Justice(s) are writing. Our analysis has been
What We Can Infer From Oral Argument: Former Illinois Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald (Part II)
Today, we conclude our Justice-by-Justice review of the question patterns of the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. We’ve been looking for evidence that it’s possible to predict the Justices’ likely votes and whether the Justice is writing an opinion based on close observation of oral argument. In our final post of this phase of
What We Can Infer From Oral Argument: Former Illinois Supreme Court Chief Justice Thomas Fitzgerald (Part I)
Yesterday, we concluded our analysis of Justice Mary Jane Theis’ questioning patterns from oral arguments during her five years on the Court, looking for indications about her likely voting and whether or not she might be writing an opinion. Today, we turn to Justice Theis’ predecessor, former Chief Justice Thomas R. Fitzgerald.
Our analysis of
What We Can Infer From Oral Argument: Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis (Part II)
Last week, we continued our Justice-by-Justice review of the question patterns on the Illinois Supreme Court by beginning our look at the numbers for Justice Mary Jane Theis. We saw that in three of the four scenarios we studied, Justice Theis tends to average at least somewhat more questions to the side she ultimately votes
What We Can Infer From Oral Argument: Illinois Supreme Court Justice Mary Jane Theis (Part I)
Today, we continue our Justice-by-Justice review of the question patterns of the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. We’re looking at whether we can infer the Justices’ likely voting and opinion writing from the Justices’ question patterns at oral argument. For this Thanksgiving Wednesday – day one of our analysis of Justice Mary Jane Theis.
What We Can Infer From Oral Argument: Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier (Part II)
Last week, we resumed our Justice-by-Justice look at the patterns of questions in oral argument, searching for evidence as to whether questioning signals a Justice’s likely vote and whether or not he or she is writing an opinion. Today, we conclude our consideration of Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier, looking at whether he is more likely
What We Can Infer From Oral Argument: Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd A. Karmeier (Part I)
Today we return to our Justice-by-Justice review of the voting patterns of the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court. We’ve been analyzing whether the Justices’ question patterns allow us to tentatively infer the Justices’ likely votes, and which Justices might be writing opinions.
Table 96 contains the data for cases in which Justice Karmeier votes