4412634793_f496a005b2_z

Yesterday, we established that all things being equal, the Illinois Supreme Court has tended to ask somewhat more questions in civil cases where they reverse than in cases where they affirm.  Today, we address the Court’s criminal cases from 2008 to 2016.

Our database consists of 160 affirmances in criminal cases and 188 reversals.  Once again, we find the losing party averaging more questions.  In affirmances, appellants averaged 18.18 questions to only 8.37 for appellees.  In reversals, appellees averaged 14.39 questions to 13.47 for appellants.  Overall, we see that once again, reversals result in more questions, although the effect is even more mild with criminal cases than with civil cases.  In reversals, the Court has averaged 27.8 questions to 26.49 for affirmances.

Not surprisingly, question totals have been more variable both in affirmances and reversals for the losing party.  In affirmances, the standard deviation for appellants has been 10.43 to 7.06 for appellees.  In reversals, appellants’ standard deviation has been 8.97 to 9.58 for appellees.  For total questions, the standard deviation for affirmances has been 13.54 to 14.58 for reversals.

Table 442

Join us back here next Tuesday as we turn our attention to another issue in studying the Court’s oral arguments.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Matt Turner (no changes).

4166893385_9010e2e3d5_z

For the past few weeks, we’ve been studying the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments between 2008 and 2016.  This week, we address a new question: is there a correlation between the result – reversal or affirmance – and the total number of questions?  Or to put it in less mathematical language, does an active bench at oral argument mean that the Court is likely to reverse?

In Table 441, we report the average questions to appellants, to appellees, and total to both sides in civil cases, divided by affirmances and reversals.  We see that the answer to our initial question is yes – although the effect isn’t dramatic, all other things being equal, a more active bench suggests a reversal.  On both sides, we see the result we identified a few weeks ago: the loser gets more questions.  Our data consists of 118 affirmances and 177 reversals in civil cases since 2008.  In affirmances, appellants have averaged 18.21 questions to only 8.773 for appellees. For reversals, there’s only a slight difference between the sides: appellees average 14.994 questions to 14.612 for appellants.  In civil affirmances, the Court has averaged 26.899 questions, as compared to 29.624 in reversals.

Questions to appellants are about equally scattered, regardless of whether there’s an affirmance or reversal.  The standard deviation of the calculation for appellants in affirmances is 9.54 to 9.63 in reversals.  But for appellees, there was a difference.  The standard deviation for appellees in reversals was 9.07 to 6.14 for appellees.  As a result of that, total questions in reversals were more variable than affirmances – the standard deviation for reversals was 15.7 to 12.18 for affirmances.

Table 441

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s oral arguments in criminal, quasi-criminal, juvenile and disciplinary cases since 2008.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Roger W. (no changes).

4511798087_9173b3b651_z

Yesterday, we determined that a dissent below, all things being equal, will lead to at least a slightly more active oral argument for appellees.  The data for appellants is more variable – the averages are virtually identical, but the numbers vary widely from case to case.  So what’s the answer for criminal cases?

Between 2008 and 2016, the Court has decided 262 criminal cases which were unanimously decided at the Appellate Court.  The Court has decided 78 cases which were unanimous below.  For appellants, a dissent below does mean at least a slightly more active oral argument.  No-dissent appellants have averaged 15.14 questions per argument.  Appellants in cases with dissents have averaged 17.42.  The spread of the data suggests that the difference is sometimes much greater than that.  The standard deviation for appellants in no-dissent cases is 9.3.  The standard deviation for appellants where there was a dissent below is 11.77.

A dissent below has some impact on an appellee’s argument as well.  Appellees in cases with no dissent below averaged 11.37 questions.  Appellees in cases with a dissent below averaged 12.85.  Once again, there is evidence that the impact is greater in at least some cases.  The standard deviation for appellees in no-dissent cases is 8.8, but the standard deviation for appellees in cases with a dissent below is 9.55.

Table 440

Join us back here next Tuesday as we turn our attention to another issue in our analysis of the Court’s oral arguments.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Matt Turner (no changes).

30017133085_f41abbb858_z

For the past several weeks, we’ve been comparing the level of questioning at the Court in civil and criminal cases to various facts about the underlying case, searching for factors which explain how active the Court is at oral argument.  This week, we turn our attention to a new possibility: is a dissent at the Appellate Court a reliable signal of a more active oral argument?  One can easily imagine the answer might be yes – if a case divided the Appellate Court, it might give the Supreme Court a lot to talk about at oral argument.

In Table 439, we report the average questions in civil cases to appellants and appellees, divided between cases which were unanimously decided below and cases which were decided over a dissent.  For the entire nine years, the Court decided 193 civil cases which were unanimous below, and 75 civil cases with a dissent.  Appellants in no-dissent cases averaged 16.82 questions. Appellants in cases where there was a dissent below averaged slightly fewer questions – 16.45 for the entire nine years.  It was a different story for appellees, however.  Appellees in cases where there was no dissent below averaged 10.3 questions, but appellees in cases with a dissent below averaged 14.86 questions, suggesting that dissents at the Appellate Court might cause the Court to press the winning party below just a bit more.  Also, there’s evidence that the number of questions to appellants was quite variable.  The standard deviation for appellants in no-dissent cases was 9.26 questions.  But the standard deviation for appellants in cases with a dissent was 11.63.  In contrast, the standard deviations for appellees were almost identical – in no dissent cases, 8.57, in cases with a dissent below, 8.43.

So what’s it all mean – does a dissent below mean a more active oral argument?  For appellees, the answer appears to be yes, at least a bit.  The difference in the standard deviation on the appellant’s side suggests that for appellants, the answer might be “it depends.”

Table 439

Join us back here tomorrow as we address the Court’s criminal arguments between 2008 and 2016.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Adam Moss (no changes).

7507995376_608682b2bb_z

Yesterday, we analyzed how the area of law impacted the total volume of questions during oral argument in civil cases between 2008 and 2016, as well as analyzing how many questions one could expect in the most common areas of law in future cases. Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal docket.

The most active subject for appellants was juvenile issues. Appellants in cases principally involving juvenile issues averaged 21.73 questions per argument. Appellants in the few cases involving the death penalty (before its abolition) and alcohol offenses averaged 20 questions. Not surprisingly, attorney discipline cases tend to be active oral arguments, as appellants average 19.17 questions. Among the most frequent items on the Court’s agenda, criminal procedure appellants averaged 15.77 questions, constitutional law appellants averaged 14.77, appellants in cases involving the law of sentencing averaged 13.57, and appellants in cases involving violent crimes averaged 12.67.

In only two areas – attorney discipline and property crimes (burglary and the like) – did appellees average more questions than their opponents. The busiest appellees were in attorney discipline cases, where appellees have gotten 21.33 questions per argument. Appellees in property crimes have averaged 19 questions. Criminal procedure appellees are next at 14.45, followed by juvenile issues (12.85), habeas corpus (12.66), constitutional law (11.79) and drug offenses (10.5). The most lightly questioned appellees, leaving aside areas with only a scattered few cases, were sex offenses (3.92), vehicle offenses (5.5) and death penalty (4.8).

As we did on the civil side, we also calculated the standard deviation of some of the most frequently heard issues in order to assess how variable the questioning has been. As we noted yesterday, approximately 68% of all results are within one standard deviation plus or minus of the mean.

Juvenile cases have varied widely between more and less active arguments. Appellants in juvenile cases have a standard deviation of 14.914, and appellees were 9.6424. Constitutional law cases were only a bit less – appellants’ standard deviation was 10.8119 to 8.4254 for appellees. Appellants in criminal procedure cases had a standard deviation of 9.68416, and appellees were 9.95733. Appellants in sentencing cases were at 8.6716 to 8.3504 for appellees. Finally, appellants in habeas corpus cases had a standard deviation of 8.3787 to 8.6912 for appellees.

Table 438

Join us back here next Tuesday as we turn our attention to a new topic in our ongoing study of the Court’s oral arguments.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Teemu008 (no changes).

6416761435_5e5e5a7877_z

For the past several weeks, we’ve been comparing the data on the number and sequence of the Illinois Supreme Court’s questions at oral argument to various variables, searching for possible predictors of particularly active oral arguments. This week, we’ll be asking whether the area of law involved in a case impacts the level of questioning.

In Table 437, we report the average questions to appellants and appellees in civil cases between 2008 and 2016, divided by the principal area of law involved in each case. The most active bench with respect to appellants – leaving aside the small groups of contract cases (25.67 questions per case) and election law cases (24.14 questions per case) – is employment law, where appellants were asked an average of 21.46 questions. Wills and Estates cases averaged 19.43 questions to appellants, and domestic relations, property and public employee pensions were all just behind (18.95, 18.33 and 18.09, respectively). Taxation averaged 17.64 questions to appellants, constitutional law averaged 16.74, and insurance averaged 16.06. Interestingly, three of the most common areas of law on the Court’s docket, tort law, civil procedure and government and administrative law, were less active on the appellant’s side. Tort appellants averaged 14.29 questions, civil procedure appellants averaged 14.64, and government and administrative law appellants averaged 14.36.

In nearly all subjects across the entire nine year period, appellants averaged more total questions than appellees. The only exceptions were in subjects relatively seldom seen on the Court’s docket: secured transactions, workers compensation, corporate law and arbitration. Collectively, appellees in election law cases averaged the most questions at 19.14. Insurance law appellees were next at 15.19. Appellees in corporate, commercial and contracts law were close behind, averaging 15, 14.5 and 14.33 questions, respectively. Among the more frequent subjects on the Court’s docket, constitutional law appellees averaged 13.44 questions. Appellees in tort averaged 13.35 questions. Appellees in civil procedure averaged 12.8. Appellees in employment law averaged 12.69. Appellees in government and administrative law averaged only 10.06 questions. The largest disparity between appellants and appellees came in employment law, where appellants averaged 8.77 questions more than appellees did, and in contracts law, where appellants averaged 11.34 more questions per argument.

We also investigated how scattered questioning was in the Court’s most frequently heard topics – much confident can an advocate be that his or her case will come in somewhere in the neighborhood of the averages set forth below? The standard deviation for questions to appellants in civil procedure cases was 10.2917. For appellees, it was 9.5722. What this shows is that cases can vary relatively widely. There is roughly a 68% chance that an appellant in a civil procedure case will get between four and twenty-four questions – one standard deviation from the mean. Similarly, an appellee in a civil procedure case will likely receive somewhere between 3 and 22 questions.

Other major topics on the Court’s docket varied a bit less. The standard deviation for questions to appellants in constitutional law was 10.3337. To appellees, it was 8.6296. For appellants in government and administrative law cases, the standard deviation was 7.8108. For appellees, it was 9.4779. The spread was less in tort questioning. For appellants, the standard deviation was 7.8222. For appellees, it was 8.2099.

Table 437

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal docket.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ron Frazier (no changes).

15262370579_8718394465

Yesterday, we looked at the likelihood that the first question to each side at oral argument in civil cases came from a Justice who would write an opinion – either the majority, a special concurrence or a dissent. Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal cases between 2008 and 2016.

Beginning with appellants, Justice Thomas has written the majority opinion thirty times when he led off questioning of the appellant. Next if Justice Garman at 26. The remainder of the Justices are bunched together – Justice Freeman wrote 16 majorities, Chief Justice Karmeier wrote 15, Chief Justice Fitzgerald and Justice Burke have written twelve and Justice Theis has written 11. The most frequent dissenters when each Justice leads off against the appellants are Justices Thomas and Burke, with five dissents apiece. Justice Thomas leads in terms of cases where he asked the first question of appellant but didn’t write an opinion with 131. Justice Freeman is next at 67, followed by Justice Garman with 50 and Justices Burke and Theis with 40 apiece.

In Table 435, we report the percentage likelihood that each Justice will write an opinion when he or she asks the first question of a criminal appellant. Justice Garman leads at 37.5%. Several Justices are close behind, including Chief Justice Karmeier (33.97%), Justice Burke (31.03%) and Chief Justice Fitzgerald (30.23%). Justice Theis is next, writing in 27.27% of cases where she asked the first question of appellants. Justice Kilbride follows at 26.67%. The likelihood across the whole Court of the first question coming from a Justice who is writing is 27.86%.

Table 435

Among appellees, once again Justice Thomas wrote the most majority opinions when he was first questioner with 22. Only two other Justices were in double figures – Chief Justice Karmeier with 11 and Justice Garman with 10. Justice Burke wrote nine majority opinions when she began the questioning of appellees, as well as five special concurrences and six dissents (both of those numbers were the highest on the Court).

The most frequent writer in cases where he asked the appellees the first question was Chief Justice Karmeier at 41.38%. Justice Burke was next, writing an opinion in 39.22% of cases where she led off. The probabilities of the remaining Justices were quite close, and significantly behind those two Justices. Justice Freeman wrote in 26.92% of cases, Justice Thomas in 25.23%, Justice Garman in 23.81% of cases, Justice Theis in 22.58%, and Justice Kilbride only 20% of the time.

Table 436

Join us back here next Tuesday as we begin work on another question in our ongoing analysis of the Court’s oral arguments.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Benjamin Esham (no changes).

27103127305_0b04ce2e3b

Today, we turn our analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments between 2008 and 2016 to a new question: how likely is it that the Justice who asks the first question in a civil case is writing an opinion?

In Table 433 below, we report the percentage of instances in civil cases in which each Justice asked the first question of appellant and was writing the majority, a special concurrence, or a dissent. For example, on twenty-three occasions, Justice Burke asked the first question of appellant, and wound up writing the majority opinion. Twice she wrote a concurrence, and five times she dissented. In comparison, she led off the questioning of appellant yet didn’t write an opinion in thirty-one cases. Justice Thomas most frequently asked the first question with 124. Justice Freeman was next at 45, followed by Justice Freeman at 38 and Justice Theis at 35. Justice Thomas wrote the majority opinion and led off questioning of the appellant 29 times. Justice Burke was second at 23, followed by Justice Theis at 18. Justice Freeman was the most frequent dissenter, leading off the questioning of appellants and writing a dissent in eight cases to Justice Thomas’ seven.

Overall, when Justice Burke asked the first question of appellants, she wrote an opinion 49.18% of the time. Justice Karmeier was second, writing an opinion 47.37% of the time when he led off. Justice Theis was third at 38.6%. Justice Garman was fourth at 29.63%. This measure was the least powerful for two of the most active questioners on the Court. Justice Thomas wrote in 23.46% of cases when he led off to the appellants, and Chief Justice Fitzgerald wrote in 23.08% of cases. No Justice was under 20%, and courtwide, the first questioner to appellants wrote an opinion in 31.07% of cases.

Table 433

So what about appellees? Justice Thomas led, writing the majority twen ty-two times when he asked the first question of appellees. Only two other Justices were in double figures – Justice Garman at 12 and Justice Burke at 10. Justices Garman and Freeman led in dissents, with each writing six dissents in cases where they began the questioning. Overall, 71 times the first question to an appellee came from the author of the majority opinion. Seventeen times, it came from the author of a dissent.

We report the percentages in Table 434. Three Justices – Chief Justice Karmeier and Justices Burke and Thomas – are more likely to be writing when they ask the first question of appellant than when they lead off with the appellee. For the other four Justices, lead-off to the appellee is a more powerful predictor of writing an opinion – often by ten to twenty percentage points. Justice Kilbride wrote an opinion in 41.18% of cases where he led off questioning of appellee. Justice Theis was right behind at 40.91%, and Justice Garman was at 39.13%. Three more Justices were tightly bunched right behind Justice Garman – Chief Justice Fitzgerald at 36.36%, Chief Justice Karmeier at 36% and Justice Freeman at 35.48%. Courtwide, the likelihood in civil cases that the first question to appellees came from a Justice writing an opinion was 31.33%.

Table 434

Join us back here tomorrow when we look at the Court’s oral arguments in criminal cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ryan Van Etten (no changes).

it0833 il illinois reflection in lake at red hills state park

Yesterday, we investigated whether a more active bench at oral argument in civil cases suggested that the majority opinion would be longer.  Today, we look at the same question on the criminal side of the docket by tracking the correlation between total questions and the length of the majority opinion.
We report the data for the criminal docket in Table 432 below.  Although we get the expected sign on the correlation in almost all years on the criminal side – more questions do typically imply a longer majority opinion – the correlation is no greater, and sometimes less than it is on the civil side.  So it appears that a more active bench does not necessarily imply a longer opinion.

For 2008, the correlation among non-unanimous cases was 0.31.  Among unanimous decisions, it was 0.22. For 2009, the correlation among non-unanimous cases was -0.28.  Among unanimous decisions, it was 0.31.  For 2010, the correlation among non-unanimous cases was 0.33.  Among unanimous cases, it dropped to nearly nothing (and would remain there for four of the next five years) at 0.1.  For 2011, the correlation between questions and length in non-unanimous cases was 0.35.  On the unanimous side, it was 0.16.  For 2012, the correlation in non-unanimous cases was 0.13.  For unanimous decisions, it was 0.03.  For 2013, the correlation among non-unanimous cases was 0.3.  Among unanimous decisions, it was 0.16.  For 2014, the correlation among non-unanimous cases was 0.37.  Among unanimous cases, it rose to 0.27.  For 2015, the correlation among non-unanimous decisions was -0.52.  Among unanimous cases, it was 0.16.  And last year, the correlation among non-unanimous decisions was nearly nothing at -0.11.  For unanimous decisions, it was 0.44.

Table 432

Join us back here next Tuesday as we turn our attention to a new question.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Mark Goebel (no changes).

984489321_380460cee5_z

Last week, we analyzed whether a more active bench at oral argument suggests that the case is likely to be under submission longer.  We found that there was no consistent, strong correlation between total questions and days under submission, either on the civil or criminal side.

This week, we ask a different question: does a more active bench mean that the majority opinion is likely to be longer?  One might expect the answer to be yes – a case with many difficult issues might be expected to generate both a lot of questions from the bench and require a lot of pages to resolve.

We begin with the oral arguments in civil cases from 2008 to 2016.  We calculate the correlation between total questions and the length of the majority opinion.  If a more active bench does usually result in a longer opinion, we would expect a positive correlation of, say, 0.5 to 1.0.

We report the results in Table 431 below, divided between non-unanimous and unanimous decisions.  The results suggest that there is no positive strong link between how active the Court is at oral argument and the length of the majority opinion.  Indeed, for five of the nine years, both on the non-unanimous and the unanimous decisions side of the ledger, the correlation has been negative – meaning that a more active bench is associated with a shorter opinion.  At times, the correlation has been comparatively high, either in the positive or negative directions; at other times, it’s been virtually nothing.  For 2008, the correlation between questions and opinion length for non-unanimous cases was -0.61.  For unanimous decisions, it was 0.33.  The following year, non-unanimous cases were 0.06, and unanimous decisions were -0.11.  For 2010, the correlation among non-unanimous decisions was 0.38.  For unanimous decisions, it was 0.47.  For 2011, the correlation on the non-unanimous side was 0.56.  But among unanimous decisions, it was -0.13.  For 2012, the correlation on the non-unanimous side had changed signs again, going to -0.32.  On the unanimous side, it was -0.23.  In 2013, the correlation for non-unanimous decisions was -0.3.  For unanimous decisions, it was -0.1.  In 2014, the correlation remained quite low on both sides – non-unanimous, -0.14, unanimous decisions 0.04.  In 2015, the correlation for non-unanimous decisions was -0.27.  For unanimous decisions, it was 0.29.  Finally, last year, the correlation between total questions and opinion length was relatively strong for non-unanimous opinions – 0.7.  But for unanimous opinions, it was nearly nil at -0.09.

Table 431

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the data for the Court’s criminal decisions.

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