In 1990, 13.04% of the Court’s criminal cases had one dissenter. Two dissenter cases were 5.8% and only 1.45% had three. In 1991, one dissenter cases were again the most common divided criminal decision. In 1992, 10.87% were two dissenter cases; only 5.43% had one and 1.07% had three. In 1993, 9.3% had one dissenter,
In 1990, 79.71% of the Court’s criminal cases were unanimous. That rose to 75.86% in 1991, 82.61% in 1992 and 83.72% in 1993. But then the unanimity rate fell: 61.54% (1994), 59.49% (1995), 68.52% (1996), 60.32% (1997), 69.44% (1998) and only 45.28% in 1999.
In 2000, only 27.91% of the Court’s criminal decisions were unanimous.
Last time, we reviewed the Court’s unanimity rate in civil cases. This time, we’re looking at the data for how the Court’s civil decisions were distributed between one, two and three dissenting votes.
In 1990, one and two dissenter cases were 8.99% of the civil docket apiece. Three-dissenter cases accounted for only 3.37%. Two dissenter
This week and next, we’re looking at the distribution of the Court’s civil and criminal cases – unanimous decisions and one, two and three dissenters (for these purposes, we’re defining a “dissenter” as anyone who votes against the Court’s judgment, regardless of whether he or she signs or joins a written dissent).
The unanimity percentage
Last time, we began our review of the data on the criminal docket regarding how often each of the Justices voted with the majority in divided criminal cases between 1990 and 2003. Today, we’re reviewing the years 2004 through 2018.
In Table 1001, we review the most recent data for Justices Burke, Fitzgerald, Freeman, Garman,
Last week, we reviewed the data showing how often each Justice voted with the majority in a divided civil case. This week, we’re looking at the criminal docket.
In Table 997, we review the numbers for five Justices – Bilandic, Calvo, Clark, Cunningham and Fitzgerald. Justice Bilandic was, for the most part, between sixty and
Last time, we began our examination of a new question: who has most often been a bellwether vote – a Justice who is nearly always in the majority in a divided decision – in civil cases? Then, we reviewed the years 1990-2003. Now, we’re taking a look at the years 2004-2018.
In Table 995, we
On the vast majority of appellate courts, there are one or two Justices of whom appellate specialists say “they’re the votes you’ve got to have” – or alternatively, “lose those votes and you’re hurting.” No matter the case, those Justices nearly always seem to be in the majority. There can be at least a couple
Over the past two weeks, we’ve reviewed the data on the distribution of the Court’s majority opinions in civil cases, and which Justice wrote the longest and shortest majorities each year. Today, we’re reviewing the data in criminal cases.
In our first table, we review the data for 1990 to 1996. In 1990, Justice Stamos
Yesterday, we looked at the year-by-year data on the civil side of the docket, asking whether a dissent at the Appellate Court tends to indicate that one or more dissenters are likely at the Supreme Court. Today, we’re looking at the same question on the criminal side.
In Table 676, we report the absolute numbers