Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Moot court simulations– briefing and presenting oral arguments– can dramatically improve the quality of an advanced undergraduate constitutional law course. In this paper I discuss the challenges and benefits inherent in utilizing moot court simulations, and offer suggestions (from my years of experimenting with different formats and a recently conducted student survey regarding moot court exercises and hypotheticals in the classroom) for instructors unfamiliar with the process or struggling to find a workable format. In particular, I address practical considerations such as how to ensure that students are equipped to succeed in a moot court exercise; the advantages in using abbreviated exercises as an alternative to, or better yet in conjunction with full-blown simulations; the utility of actual cases– recently decided and/or pending– as compared to hypothetical cases; and strategies for maximizing student interest in crafting hypothetical cases.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: Understanding who wins in the courts is an essential component of a full appreciation of "the authoritative allocation of values" in society (Easton 1953). In this paper we examine the relationship between the status of litigants, especially the comparison of repeat player "haves" (RP) to one-shotters (OS) who are usually "have-nots," and their rates of success in top appellate courts in the common law world. Using data from the highest courts of appeals across nine countries we explore winners and losers in a comparative context. The results indicate that there is greater variation in who wins and who loses than party capability theory would suggest. Moreover, the results find that contrary to the assumption among many that the creation of entrenched constitutional protections will be particularly advantageous to the “have nots”, we found that individuals won less frequently and governments won more frequently in cases involving the application of such constitutional “protections.” Somewhat analogously, we discovered that contrary to the basic assumptions of democratic theory, ordinary individuals won less often and businesses won more often in democratic regimes than in authoritarian regimes.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Using data from 2000-2006, we compare the contestation rates and levels of competition in Intermediate Appellate Court (IAC) elections to elections for the U.S. House of Representatives and state supreme courts. We find that while the vast majority of IAC judges are not challenged, those who are face competitive elections and frequently lose.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: The literature on federal judicial decisionmaking has recognized that repeat players seem to exert extra pressure on judges' decisions. The influence of state governments as examples of such repeat players has long been a subject of study. In this paper I intend to examine whether local governments can claim a similar influence on state appellate court decisions. I intend to examine the frequency of the appearance of local governments, either as parties or as amici, in cases before state supreme courts and attempt to measure their relative success. This research promises to further the study of both judicial decisionmaking at the state level and the impact of state courts on intergovernmental policymaking.

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: While many scholars and judges have discussed the importance of increasing the efficiency of the judicial process, few studies have empirically examined the factors that affect efficiency. Using a dataset which combines the Songer Court of Appeals Database, the Auburn Appeals Court Attribute Dataset, and the Federal Judicial Center Integrated Data Base, we model the time it takes a three-judge panel to dispose of a case as a function of the panel’s gender and racial diversity, while controlling for a variety of factors (e.g., circuit size, caseload). While part of a larger series of projects, our primary goal in this paper is to test two alternative theories of the impact of workgroup diversity on decisionmaking efficiency. One theory suggests that homogenous workgroups are more efficient. A second school of thought holds that workgroup diversity actually enhances efficient decisionmaking. Our data will allow us to test these competing hypotheses as they function in judicial settings, an important step towards a more complete understanding of factors influencing judicial decisionmaking.