5462226045_e3355ebe19_z

Yesterday, we investigated whether more questions at oral argument meant a longer wait for the opinion by tracking the correlation between total questions and lag time.  Today, we apply the same test to the Court’s criminal cases.

We report the correlation between days from the oral argument to decision and total number of questions in criminal cases in Table 430 below.  In contrast to the civil side, the correlation is for the most part in the expected direction – more questions equals more days under submission, not fewer.  And the correlations are at least a bit higher on the criminal side than they are on the civil side.

In 2008, both correlations are negative: more questions means a quicker decision.  For non-unanimous criminal cases, the correlation was a moderately strong -0.64, and for unanimous decisions, the correlation was a weak -0.13.  In 2009, non-unanimous decisions had a positive correlation of 0.35, and unanimous decisions had a nearly equal figure – 0.34.  In 2010, both numbers had turned negative again.  Non-unanimous decisions had a correlation of -0.57, while unanimous decisions had a tiny correlation of -0.11.  In 2011, non-unanimous decisions had a correlation of 0.46, to 0.41 for unanimous decisions.  In 2012, both correlations were tiny: 0.31 on the non-unanimous side, only 0.11 on the unanimous side.  The next year, the correlations got even smaller.  On the non-unanimous side, the correlation was 0.28, and 0.1 on the unanimous side.  In 2014, correlations for non-unanimous cases were quite strong at 0.62.  Correlations among unanimous decisions were much smaller at 0.27.  In 2015, the correlation between non-unanimous cases and total questions was only 0.4.  The correlation on the unanimous side was 0.2.  Last year, the correlation on the non-unanimous side was at least somewhat strong at 0.53.  But the correlation on the unanimous side had turned in an unexpected direction again at -0.1.

Table 430

Join us back here next Tuesday as we take another step in our study of the Court’s oral arguments.

Image courtesy of Flickr by JFXie (no changes).

3276585415_d3485d2c52_z

For several weeks, we’ve been evaluating what we can infer from the pattern of the Illinois Supreme Court’s questions in civil and criminal cases.  This week, we turn to a new question: does an active bench mean you’ll be waiting a longer time for the opinion?  One can easily imagine that the answer might be yes.  If heavy questioning from the Court suggests that the Justices are having difficulty with some point in the argument, a great many questions might mean a particularly long wait for the opinion.

We’ve already measured the average number of questions directed each year to both sides of the argument, and the average time under submission.  But absolute numbers aren’t the tools of predictive analytics: correlations are.  So is there a correlation between total questions in civil cases and the number of days from argument to decision?  Recall that if two numbers move in the same direction perfectly together – 2, 4, 8 and 4, 8, 16, for example – the correlation is positive one.  If the variables move in perfect sync, but in opposite directions – more of this equals a proportionally less amount of that – then the correlation is negative one.  So does the correlation between total questions in civil oral arguments from 2008 to 2016 and the total days from argument to decision suggest that more questions means a longer wait?

We report the data in Table 429 below.  We notice two things immediately about our data: first, correlations are comparatively small, and second, the sign keeps changing, suggesting no stable relationship between total questions in civil cases and days under submission.  We measure eighteen variables in the chart – a correlation for non-unanimous and unanimous decisions for each of nine years – but only three times did the correlation exceed 0.5.  For 2008, more questions meant less time under submission, regardless of whether the Court was divided or not.  For non-unanimous cases, the correlation was -0.066, and for unanimous cases, the correlation was -0.4.  For 2009, the correlation for non-unanimous cases turned positive, but was very small: 0.04.  Unanimous cases had a correlation of -0.28.  For 2010, the correlations were still opposite to the sign our theory leads us to expect: for non-unanimous cases, the correlation is a moderately large -0.58, and for unanimous cases, the correlation is a small (and negative) -0.17.  For 2011, both sides of the civil docket had turned in the expected direction – for non-unanimous cases, the correlation was 0.37, and for unanimous cases, the correlation was 0.2.  For 2012, the correlation among non-unanimous cases was just a bit bigger, at 0.41, but for unanimous cases, it had turned negative again, at -0.22.

Over the past three years, the relationship between total questions in civil cases and days under submission has been weak, and often the reverse of what we expect.  In 2013, non-unanimous cases had a correlation of 0.33, but unanimous decisions had a correlation of -0.23.  In 2014, both measures were negative – non-unanimous cases had a strong correlation of -0.78, and unanimous decisions had a correlation of -0.12.  For 2015, both correlations were quite small: non-unanimous cases had a correlation between questions and lag time of -0.2.  Unanimous decisions had a correlation of only 0.05.  Last year, the correlation for non-unanimous cases was relatively strong at 0.71.  The correlation between questions and lag time for unanimous decisions was -0.3.

Table 429

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the numbers of the criminal side of the docket.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Normalityrelief (no changes).

Ruby Street Bridge

Yesterday, we continued our ongoing analysis of the Court’s oral arguments by looking at whether the margin in number of questions between the parties tended to be larger when the Court was unanimous. We theorized that such an effect might be the result of the entire Court concentrating on one side, as opposed to evenly divided cases where the majority focuses on the side they’re voting against and the minority focuses on their opponents. We concluded that there was at least some support for the notion that margins in questions tend to be a bit bigger when the Court is unanimous.  Today, we turn to the Court’s criminal docket between 2008 and 2015.

On the civil side, we saw only a minor inclination towards more lopsided questioning in unanimous cases.  On the criminal side, we see no evidence for such an inclination.  Unanimous cases have had a higher margin of questions four of the eight years, and non-unanimous cases have had the higher margin four of the eight years.  In 2008, the average margin in questions on the unanimous side was 13.69 to only four among non-unanimous decisions.  In 2009, the average margin on the unanimous side was 11.46, to 9.1 on the non-unanimous side.  In 2010, the unanimous average was 13.35, to 12.36 on the non-unanimous side.

But then, we see four straight years where non-unanimous questions had the more imbalanced questioning.  In 2011, non-unanimous cases had an average margin of 15.4 to 11.08 on the unanimous side. In 2012, non-unanimous cases averaged 14.2 to 9.09 on the unanimous side. In 2013, the non-unanimous average was 8.23 to 5.28 on the unanimous side.  In 2014, non-unanimous cases averaged a difference of 9.14 questions, to 8.67 for unanimous decisions.  Not until 2015 did the sides flip again, as unanimous cases averaged a difference of 6.85 questions to 5.0 on the non-unanimous side.

Table 428

Join us back here next Tuesday as we take up another question in our continuing analysis of the Court’s oral arguments.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Vxla (no changes).

 

 

 

5405699351_283f039a8e_z

Over the past few weeks, we’ve been taking a close look at what can be learned from the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments since 2008.  We’ve shown that the Court tends to ask slightly more questions of appellants in civil cases, and definitely averages more questions to appellants in criminal cases.  We’ve disproven the common claim that the Court averages many more questions in civil than in criminal cases.  We’ve shown that disagreement on the Court doesn’t produce a larger total number of questions, and we’ve shown that not only is the more heavily questioned side likely to lose, as the margin between questions to one side and the other increases, the odds of the more heavily questioned party winning drop like a rock.

Today, we test a different hypothesis.  If questioning from oral argument indicates a Justice’s disquiet with your position – which is one interpretation of the result that the loser gets more questions – then perhaps we can expect the difference between one side’s total questions and the other’s to be higher in unanimous decisions.  If a case is closely divided, questioning might be as well: the majority questions the party which will eventually lose, but the minority questions the eventual winner.  But if a decision is unanimous, everyone on the Court is concentrating their questions on the same party – the party who’s in trouble.

So: does the difference in total questions between one side and the other tend to be higher in unanimous decisions?

There is at least some evidence that the answer is yes for civil cases.  In 2008, 2010, 2011, 2014 and 2015, the margin between the sides was greater in unanimous than in non-unanimous decisions.  In 2008, the margin for unanimous decisions was 12.61 questions; for non-unanimous, it was 11.5.  In 2010, the sides were close – 7.54 for unanimous, 7.33 for non-unanimous.  In 2011, unanimous cases had a margin of 11.63 to 6.11 for non-unanimous cases.  In 2014, unanimous cases had an average margin of 10.37 questions to only 4.33 in non-unanimous cases.  And in 2015, the margin was 9.06 in unanimous cases, only 5 questions in non-unanimous ones.

In only three years was the margin greater in non-unanimous cases: 2009, 2012 and 2013.  In 2009, the average margin in unanimous cases was 8.72 to 15 in non-unanimous cases.  In 2012, the margin in unanimous decisions was 8.81 to 10.17 in non-unanimous decisions.  And in 2013, the margin for unanimous decisions was 8.8 to 10.14 in non-unanimous decisions.

Table 427

Join us back here tomorrow morning as we look at the data for criminal cases.

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

21451500436_c45e4b442b_z (1)

Yesterday, we compared the average level of questioning in civil cases since 2008 for winning and losing appellants, and winning and losing appellees, year by year, showing that in nearly every year, losing parties averaged more questions than winners.  Then we calculated the odds of winning, based upon the comparison between how many questions you get, and how many your opponent got.  Today, we turn our attention to the same measurements on the criminal side of the docket.

Comparing winning and losing parties on the criminal side, the result is the same – in the past eight years, only once have winning parties averaged more questions than losing parties.  And winning appellees – frequently, but not always, the State – often average significantly fewer questions than appellees who are in trouble.  In 2008, winning appellants averaged 16.47 questions in criminal cases to 23.08 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees averaged 8.25, losing appellees 15.88.  In 2009, winning appellants averaged 16.85 questions to 19.05 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees averaged 11.75 questions to 16.19 for losing ones.  In 2010, winning appellants averaged 14.41 questions; appellants who lost averaged 22.97.  Winning appellees averaged 7.83 questions; appellees who lost got 17 questions.  In 2011, winning appellants averaged 15.42 questions to 22.1 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees got only 8.1 questions; losing ones got 17.63.  In 2012, winning appellants averaged 11 questions.  Losing appellants averaged 20.53.  Winning appellees averaged 8.47 to 15.44 for appellees who lost.  In 2013, for the first time, winning appellants were slightly busier than ones who lost – 12.24 to 11.71.  Winning appellees that year averaged 7.24 questions to 13.86 for losing appellees.  In 2014, winning appellants averaged 10.93 questions to 15.3 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees averaged 10.55 questions to 12 for losing appellees.  Last year, winning appellants averaged 10.05 questions to 12.6 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees were at their lowest level of the period, averaging only 3.7 questions.  Losing appellees averaged 8.18.

Table 425

So what’s the bottom line?  Just how long are the odds against you if you get more questions than your opponent?  Interestingly, the result is fairly similar to the civil side.

Appellants who get 10+ fewer questions than their opponents win 89.47% of the time between 2008 and 2015.  Appellees who get 10+ fewer win 74.22% of their cases.  Appellants who get 1-9 fewer questions win 71.88% of the time.  Appellees who get 1-9 fewer questions win less than half their cases – 47.83%.  Appellants have won two thirds of the cases where questions were exactly equal.  When an appellant gets 1-9 questions more than the appellee, appellants win 52.17% of the time.  But appellees win only 28.13% of the time under those circumstances.  If you get 10+ more questions than your oppoonent, you’re facing long odds – 25.77% of appellants win under those circumstances to 10.53% of appellees.

Table 426

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

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

8375968351_82d508e0fa_z (1)

All appellate specialists, without exception, prefer a “hot bench” at oral argument.  The sole reason for you to be there is to find out what, if anything, is troubling the Court about your case, and try to answer their concerns.  But the paradox of a hot bench is this: as I told an interviewer a few weeks ago, getting more questions than your opponent means you’re probably losing.  That’s been the unanimous conclusion of the academic research done on oral argument, and that’s what our research on the Illinois Supreme Court shows too.

In Table 423, we report the data for arguments in civil cases from 2008 through 2015.  We divide winning and losing appellants, and winning and losing appellees, year by year.  In that eight year period, winning appellants averaged more questions than losing appellants exactly once.  Winning appellees have never averaged more questions than losing appellees.

For 2008, winning appellants averaged 19.3 questions at argument to 18.89 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees averaged only 12.22 questions, while losing appellees got 22.27.  For 2009, appellants averaged 19.75 (winning) and 20.64 (losing), and appellees averaged 11 (winning) and 17.71 (losing).  For 2010 and 2011, the difference for appellants grew a bit, with winners averaging five fewer questions (17.26 to 22.21 in 2010, 15.24 to 20.56 in 2011).  Winning appellees were only slightly less busy in 2010 – 12.36 to 14.32, but much less so the next year (7.89 questions for winners, 18 for losing appellees).  In 2012, winning appellants averaged 15 questions to 17.11 for losing appellants.  The difference on the appellees’ side was much bigger – 9.44 for winners, 18.07 for losing appellees.  In 2013, winning appellants averaged 13.63 questions to 17.67 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees averaged 7.87 questions to 10.42 for losing appellees.  In 2014, winning appellants averaged 15.25 questions to 23.4 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees averaged only 10.10 questions to 14.75 for losing appellees.  Last year, questioning was somewhat down across the board.  Winning appellants had 7.96 questions on average to 12.08 for losing appellants.  Winning appellees averaged 6.05 questions to 12.48 for losing appellees.

Table 423

So what’s the bottom line – how long are the odds facing someone who gets more questions at oral argument?

Pretty long, as we show in Table 424 – especially for appellees.  An appellant who gets fewer questions than his or her opponent is likely in pretty good shape.  Appellants who received between one and nine questions fewer than his or her opponent won 84.51% of the time in civil cases.  When the appellant got ten fewer questions or above, the appellant prevailed 92.31% of the time.  An appellee getting fewer questions is a bit less of a lock.  Appellees getting 10+ fewer questions won 68.83% of their cases, and appellees getting 1-9 fewer questions won only 43.04% of the time.  Of course, the data when each side got more questions is the inverse of this.  Appellants who got 1-9 more questions won 56.96% of the time, and appellants who got 10+ more questions won 31.17% of the time.  Appellees who got 1-9 more questions won only 15.49% of the time, and 10+ more questions resulted in an appellee’s win only 7.69% of the time.  What about when questioning was evenly split?  Well, it’s only happened nine times on the civil side in eight years, but to date, appellants have won 77.78% of those cases.

Table 424

Join us back here tomorrow as we’ll take a look at the same measurements for the criminal docket.

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

6545944397_f6ed5aed49_z

Yesterday, we looked for evidence that questioning at oral argument is driven by a desire to persuade a Justice’s colleagues by comparing the average questions to each side in non-unanimous versus unanimous decisions on the civil docket. Today, we repeat the comparison, looking at the Court’s criminal cases between 2008 and 2015. On the criminal side, we find slightly more evidence that disagreement on the Court drives heavier questioning – but only a bit more.

Appellants in criminal cases received more questions in non-unanimous cases than in unanimous cases in 2008, 2009, 2011, 2012 and 2013.  Appellees in non-unanimous criminal cases received more questions than in unanimous cases in 2008, 2010, 2012, 2013 and 2014.  In 2008, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 21 questions to 19.04 in unanimous cases.  Appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 17.67 questions to 11.7 in unanimous cases.  In 2009, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 18.64 questions to 16.95 for unanimous cases.  Appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 11.27 questions to 14.82 for unanimous cases.  In 2010, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 17.85 questions to 18.51 in unanimous cases.  Appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 16.69 questions to 10.22 in unanimous cases.  In 2011, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 23.7 questions to 17.47 in unanimous cases.  Appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 8.3 questions to 15.17 in unanimous cases.  In 2012, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 23 questions to only 11.7 for appellants in unanimous cases.  Appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 14.6 questions to 10.48 questions for appellees in unanimous cases.  In 2013, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 17 questions to 10.4 in non-unanimous cases.  Appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 13.38 questions to 9.6 questions for unanimous cases.  In 2014, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 9.86 questions to 14.44 for unanimous cases.  Appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 16.71 questions to 9.7 questions in unanimous cases.  Last year, appellants in non-unanimous criminal cases averaged 10 questions per argument to 11.04 for appellants in unanimous decisions.  Appellees in non-unanimous criminal cases averaged only 5 questions per argument; appellees in unanimous decisions averaged 7.19 questions.

Table 422

Join us back here next Tuesday as we turn our attention to a new question in comparing the Court’s oral arguments in civil and criminal cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Richie Diesterheft (no changes).

370814662_03cec01d9e_z

There are many theories among the appellate bar about what sparks questions from the court during oral argument.  One of the most frequently heard theories is that the Justices are talking to each other – that Justices are raising points which are troubling their colleagues, or trying to expose what they see as problems with the position adopted by another group of Justices.

One way of testing that theory is to divide the oral arguments into unanimous and non-unanimous decisions, and compare the average questions asked to each side.  If the Justices’ questions are attempts to persuade dissenting colleagues, we would expect non-unanimous decisions to produce a higher level of questioning.

We report the data for civil cases from 2008 to 2015 in Table 421 below.  We see that far from supporting the theory that disagreement on the Court increasing questioning, the opposite is often true – the Court tends to ask more questions when the Justices are unanimous.  Among appellants, in 2008 the Court averaged 13.33 questions in non-unanimous cases, but 18.78 questions in unanimous cases.  For 2009, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 21.57 questions to 19.66 in unanimous decisions.  For 2010, appellants in non-unanimous cases got an average of 19 questions, but appellants in unanimous decisions got 19.5.  The following year, appellants in non-unanimous cases were down a bit to 16.44, but unanimous cases were still heavier – appellants averaged 18.07 questions.  In 2012, questions to appellants in non-unanimous cases were flat at 16.28.  Questions to appellants in unanimous cases averaged 15.  For 2013, the Court was more active with appellants in non-unanimous cases – 17.21 to 14.15.  But the effect only lasted a year – in 2014, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 16.83 questions to 17.05 in unanimous ones, and last year, appellants in non-unanimous cases averaged 9.56 to 10.38 in unanimous cases.

On the appellee side, once again, there’s little evidence that division makes for a hotter bench.  In 2008, appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 17.83 questions, while appellees in unanimous cases got 18.72.  In 2009, appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 12.86 questions to 16.47 for unanimous decisions.  In 2010, appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 11.67 questions to 14.17 for unanimous cases.  In 2011, appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 14.56 questions to 9.78 for unanimous cases.  In 2012, the two sides were nearly dead-even: 15.89 questions to non-unanimous appellees, 15.76 to unanimous appellees.  In 2013, appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 9.07 questions to 9.45 in unanimous cases.  In 2014, appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 17.17 questions to 11.41 for appellees in unanimous decisions.  Finally, in 2015, appellees in non-unanimous cases averaged 10.11 questions to 9.32 questions for appellees in unanimous decisions.

Table 421

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the effect of division on the Court on questioning in criminal cases.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Vince Smith (no changes).

14469994529_c8473974c5_z

Yesterday, we continued our analysis of the Illinois Supreme Court’s oral arguments by analyzing whether the Court generally asked more questions of appellants or appellees in civil cases.  Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal docket.

Between 2008 and 2015, the Court asked 5,057 questions of appellants in criminal, quasi-criminal and juvenile matters, and 3,718 questions of appellees.  The Court asked significantly more questions of appellants in every year of the period.  For the partial year of 2008, appellants were asked 577 questions, and appellees received 369 questions.  For 2009, appellants were asked 849 questions, and appellees received 687 questions.  For 2010, appellants reached their highest level at 991 questions.  Appellees received 636 questions that year.  For 2011, appellant questions declined to 866, but appellee questions were fairly flat at 629.

In the years since 2011, the Court has been markedly less active in its questioning in criminal matters.  For 2012, the Court asked 499 questions of appellants, and 387 of appellees.  The next year, appellant questions were down slightly to 477, appellee questions were up a bit to 414.  For 2014, appellant questions declined a bit more to 459. Appellee questions were down as well, to 379.  For 2015, questions to both sides were at their lowest level – 347 questions for appellants, 217 for appellees.

Table 418

Overall, the Court has averaged 16.05 questions to criminal appellants (generally, but not always, the defendant), and 11.8 to appellees.  Questions to appellants were at their highest level in 2008, averaging 19.9.  Appellees received 12.72 questions per case that year.  In 2009, appellants averaged 17.69 questions per case, while appellees averaged 14.31.  The next year, appellants were at 18.69 questions per case, and appellees averaged 12.  For 2011, appellants averaged 19.24 questions, while appellees averaged 13.98.  Since 2011, questions to appellants have fallen – 15.59 per case in 2012, 12.89 in 2013, 13.91 in 2014 and 11.19 questions in 2015.  Questions to appellees were only down slightly as a per case average – 12.09 in 2012, 11.19 in 2013 and 11.48 in 2014. For 2015, appellees averaged a mere seven questions per case.

Table 419

I’ve heard it said by specialists in criminal appeals that the Court is significantly less active in criminal arguments than it is in civil cases.  In Table 420, we consolidate the per-case averages for civil and criminal cases into the same graph to investigate the issue.

Overall, the Court has not been substantially more active in civil than in criminal matters.  Civil appellants have received an average of 16.15 questions per case to 16.05 for criminal appellants. Civil appellees have averaged 13.37 questions per case to 11.8 for criminal appellees.  For 2008, criminal appellants received more questions than civil appellants, but civil appellees averaged more questions than their counterparts.  For 2009 and 2010, civil appellants and appellees both averaged more questions than criminal case parties.  But for 2011, the relationship reversed – both criminal appellants and appellees averaged more questions than civil litigants.  And in 2012, the relationship reversed again, with civil cases being more active. In 2013, civil appellants averaged more questions, but criminal appellees averaged more than civil appellees.  For 2014, both sides in civil cases averaged more questions than criminal litigants.  For 2015, with questions down across the board, criminal appellants averaged more questions, but civil appellees had a narrow lead.

Table 420

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

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

8213918245_4626914fcd_z

Last week, we began our review of eight years’ worth of oral arguments in civil and criminal matters at the Illinois Supreme Court.  Today, we look at a simple question: does the Court tend to ask appellants or appellees more questions?

The year by year data, divided by side, is reported in Table 416 below.  For the entire period, the Court asked appellants 4,150 questions in civil cases, and asked appellees 3,437 questions.  In only two years – 2008 and 2012 – has the Court asked more questions of appellees.  For 2008, the Court asked 418 questions of appellants, 444 of appellees (I should note that this number is reduced somewhat because several cases decided in 2008 were argued in 2007, before the Court began posting videos of arguments on the court website).  The following year, the Court asked 780 questions of appellants and 617 of appellees.  In 2010, questions were down on both sides in absolute terms – 639 for appellants, 445 for appellees.  For 2011, appellant questions were flat at 642, while appellee questions dropped a bit more to 395.  For 2012, appellant questions were down a bit to 608, but questions to appellees were way up at 317.  For 2013, questions were down on both sides: 524 to appellants, 316 to appellees.  For 2014, appellee questions were up slightly to 328, but questions to appellants dropped again, to 459.  Last year, the Court asked 439 questions of appellants, and 408 of appellees.

Table 416

But those are aggregate numbers – what do the case-by-case averages look like?  For the entire period, the Court averaged slightly more questions to appellants than appellees – 16.15 to appellants, 13.37 to appellees.  The averages are relatively steady on both sides.  For 2008, the Court averaged 18.17 questions per case to appellants, 19.3 to appellees.  The next year, it was 20.53 to appellants, 16.24 to appellees.  For 2010, the Court averaged 19.97 questions to appellants, 13.91 to appellees.  For 2011, both sides were down – 17.83 questions per case to appellants, 10.97 to appellees.  For 2012, questions for appellants were down to an average of 16, but the Court averaged 16.24 questions per case to appellees – a substantial increase.  For 2013, both sides dropped – 15.88 questions to appellants, 9.58 to appellees.  In 2014, appellant questions were up a bit, averaging 17.65 per case, and appellee questions were up by one third at 12.62.  But for 2015, questions dropped on both sides to their lowest level of the eight years – 10.21 questions per case for appellants, 9.49 to appellees.

Table 417

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal cases for the years 2008 through 2015.

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