Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Review Method: Peer Reviewed
Abstract: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a unique Federal agency because it is subject to the jurisdiction of different trial courts, the two most important of which are the United States Tax Court, a specialized court of limited jurisdiction, and the Federal District Court, a court of general jurisdiction. This manuscript compares the decision making process by the United States Tax Court and The United States District Courts in tax cases. Using data from 1996 and 1997, and incorporating the latest measures of ideology, I systematically examine the differences in decision making of these courts specifically focusing on expertise and ideology. I find that the United States Tax Court uses its expertise, and lack of realistic structural or hierarchical constraints, to decide the cases in a far more ideological manner than the United States District Court. I argue that this is consistent and proper decision making given the complexity and political nature of tax assessment and tax collection

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: Federal district court judges are seen as the most highly constrained judges in the federal system. This paper seeks to explore these constraints by analyzing the effects of changes in Supreme Court precedent on district court decision-making. Specifically, I evaluate changes in the standard of review applied by the courts. Strict scrutiny is the most restrictive standard, requiring that the government provide a compelling government interest for implementing a law. An intermediate standard of review lowers the threshold that governments have to meet. Conventional wisdom suggests that more state statues would be upheld if the Supreme Court changed precedent from a strict scrutiny standard to an intermediate standard. Instead, using a formal model, I show that because of the uncertainty associated with an intermediate standard, the district courts will strike down more state statues after a shift to an intermediate standard. The formal model is supported by an empirical analysis of abortion cases decided in the Federal District Courts from 1973-2007. I show that after the Supreme Court shifted to an intermediate standard of review (undue burden standard), district court judges became more likely to strike down state legislation.

Publication Type: Poster
Abstract: Court efficiency is an issue worthy of scholarly attention in the field of criminology. Most obviously, the inability of a court to process cases in a timely manner can result in the termination of cases, the denial of the fundamental right to justice and the potential perception by the public that the criminal justice system is unfair (Leverick & Duff, 2002; Ashworth, 1994; Church, 1982). Within the specific context of bail court, decisions should arguably be determined quickly, as even a short period of time in custody can have devastating effects on a person’s life (Varma, 2002; Hucklesby, 1997; Rumgay, 1995). This paper intends to examine the possible relationship between court culture (the beliefs, expectations, and informal customs shared among court personnel) and court efficiency. Through a comparison of two Eastern Ontario bail courts with varying levels of court efficiency (measured by the number of bail appearances that a case requires - on average - to complete the bail process), this study explores the characteristics of both an efficient and inefficient court, comparatively and applies these characteristics to what has been found in previous research on court culture (most notably Leverick and Duff’s (2002) analysis of passive and proactive Scottish magistrate courts).

Publication Type: Conference Paper/Unpublished Manuscript
Abstract: This presentation will report the potential time and cost efficiencies associated with a proposal to significantly restructure the trial courts of a state court system within the United States. The study focused on two restructuring scenarios. One scenario consists of the consolidation of Criminal Court, which handles misdemeanor cases, Supreme Court, which handles criminal felonies and civil cases, and Family Court. The other scenario consists of the implementation of Integrated Domestic Violence Courts which bring before one judge all the domestic violence-related cases of a family, including those involving criminal, civil orders of protection, custody, visitation, matrimonial, and other matters. Therefore, Integrated Domestic Violence Courts are conceived to bring substantive benefits in the handling of domestic violence cases. This study advances results found in past studies by conducting a unique cost-benefit projection of the Criminal, Supreme, and Family Courts restructuring by analyzing court observations, interviews, and case data in two jurisdictions. The analysis will provide impact projections on capacity and time utilization for the judicial system, attorneys, corrections, social service agencies, and litigants. This study also advances past results of Integrated Domestic Violence Court studies by analyzing case data to examine whether these courts lead to more efficient handling of cases involving the same parties, a reduction in appearances and trips to court, and a change in case outcome indicators, such as length of time in detention, sentencing options and consistency, and use of orders of protection. The study is currently in progress. Results are expected Spring 2005.