As a lawyer who is a judge, and who is married to a lawyer, I found this article about a report from a independent insurance agency in Solon, Ohio, to be pretty interesting. The article points out that this agency, which maintains a website for potential customers to use when applying for insurance, has been keep track of the accident history that people self-report when applying for insurance.
According to this agency's report, 44% of legal professionals seeking insurance report having a previous accident. This was the highest percentage of all occupations surveyed. The survey was based on single, primary drivers owning a single vehicle and was complied over a seven month period.
One of the officers of Insurance.com, the agency doing the survey, links the cause to the desire of legal professionals to "multi-task" while driving. Of course, another explanation could be that legal professionals are more conscientious about giving an accurate history of prior accidents.
No matter what the reason, the article is fascinating. Check it out.
Showing posts with label judges. Show all posts
Showing posts with label judges. Show all posts
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Does a Judge's Race, Gender, or Political Affiliation Make a Difference in How Cases are Determined??
There is a fascinating article online that is posted on the American Bar Association Journal website about a recent study by law professors from Pittsburgh.
The studies claim that in cases involving allegations of racial and sexual harassment, the race and gender of the judges led to different results, although not different procedural rulings. That is, the studies indicate that all judges applied the law in the same manner, but that different judges reached different factual conclusions depending on their backgrounds.
According to the article, the studies were made of cases in the Federal court system. They apparently covered both trial and appellate courts. In the case of the racial harassment study, the authors looked at a random selection of 40% of all such cases handled in six federal circuit court of appeals. In the sexual harassment study, the authors looked at 556 cases in the federal appellate courts.
In the racial harassment study, the authors found that plaintiffs "...lost just 54 percent of the time when the judge handling the case was an African-American. Yet plaintiffs lost 81 percent of the time when the judge was Hispanic, 79 percent when the judge was white, and 67 percent of the time when the judge was Asian American."
The study also shows that political affiliation was important, at least in the study of the racial harassment cases. This is a quote from the study regarding racial harassment: "As shown in Table 3, judges appointed by a Democratic President (“Democratic judges”) held for the plaintiff in 29.3% of the cases, in contrast to judges appointed by a Republican President (“Republican judges”) who held for the plaintiff only 17% of the time."
While lawyers may not be surprised by these findings, people who are not lawyers may find these results disconcerting. Most people want to believe that a judge is only influenced by the law and that he or she does not allow their background to influence how they decide cases.
There is also some interesting information in the racial harassment study concerning the racial breakdown of judges in both state courts and federal courts. The racial harassment study can be read online in a pdf format. You can read the article by clicking here.
The studies claim that in cases involving allegations of racial and sexual harassment, the race and gender of the judges led to different results, although not different procedural rulings. That is, the studies indicate that all judges applied the law in the same manner, but that different judges reached different factual conclusions depending on their backgrounds.
According to the article, the studies were made of cases in the Federal court system. They apparently covered both trial and appellate courts. In the case of the racial harassment study, the authors looked at a random selection of 40% of all such cases handled in six federal circuit court of appeals. In the sexual harassment study, the authors looked at 556 cases in the federal appellate courts.
In the racial harassment study, the authors found that plaintiffs "...lost just 54 percent of the time when the judge handling the case was an African-American. Yet plaintiffs lost 81 percent of the time when the judge was Hispanic, 79 percent when the judge was white, and 67 percent of the time when the judge was Asian American."
The study also shows that political affiliation was important, at least in the study of the racial harassment cases. This is a quote from the study regarding racial harassment: "As shown in Table 3, judges appointed by a Democratic President (“Democratic judges”) held for the plaintiff in 29.3% of the cases, in contrast to judges appointed by a Republican President (“Republican judges”) who held for the plaintiff only 17% of the time."
While lawyers may not be surprised by these findings, people who are not lawyers may find these results disconcerting. Most people want to believe that a judge is only influenced by the law and that he or she does not allow their background to influence how they decide cases.
There is also some interesting information in the racial harassment study concerning the racial breakdown of judges in both state courts and federal courts. The racial harassment study can be read online in a pdf format. You can read the article by clicking here.
Should Cell Phones be Banned from Courthouses?
By Judge James Kimbler
Judges of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which is located in Sandusky, Ohio, have adopted a local rule of court that bans cell phones, laptop computers and notebook computers from the courthouse. This ban affects jurors, witnesses, and parties to lawsuits. According to a online article about the Erie County policy,"Court workers, lawyers, law enforcement officers and news media are exempt from the new rule."
The article linked to above points out that this policy is based on similar policies adopted in Licking and Lucas counties. The article also refers to a mistrial in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Judge John Russo found out that a juror had sent a text message to an attorney asking a legal question about the felonious assault case the juror was hearing.
The Erie County judges seem to be concerned about jurors and trial participants using cell phones and portable computers to take pictures of trial participants, do their own legal research while a trial is in progress, or text or record what witnesses are saying in order to allow other witnesses to tailor their testimony.
Similar bans have been adopted in other counties such as Stark County and Knox County. These bans are sometimes imposed just on participants in trials while other bans are more comprehensive, affecting everyone who comes into the courthouse.
So far the Ohio Supreme Court has not used its rule making power to adopt a comprehensive rule that would coverall Ohio counties and all Ohio courts. When you consider the diversity in Ohio among its 88 counties in terms of population and financial resources, it is hard to imagine the Ohio Supreme Court doing so in the near feature.
This rule could negatively impact people called for jury duty. Jurors often use their cell phones to talk with babysitters, other family members, and to keep up with work while they are on jury duty. Having to go to their car to use their cell phones or get them from court personnel might be more than a little inconvenient. It also might make people less willing to serve on juries.
Interestingly enough, the biggest problem that I have ever had as a judge with a juror using computers didn't involve a cell phone or laptop. It involved a juror going home one night during a two week medical malpractice, researching how often the defendant doctor had been sued for malpractice and then coming in the next day and sharing that information with the rest of the jury panel. The result was a mistrial and waste of thousands of dollars in trial expense for both parties. A ban on cell phones or laptop computers wouldn't have prevented the mistrial in that case.
If anyone knows of other counties which have instituted such bans, please send me information about the ban, and your reaction to it, at judgejameskimbler@yahoo.com. For more information on such bans in other parts of the United States, click here.
Judges of the Erie County Court of Common Pleas, which is located in Sandusky, Ohio, have adopted a local rule of court that bans cell phones, laptop computers and notebook computers from the courthouse. This ban affects jurors, witnesses, and parties to lawsuits. According to a online article about the Erie County policy,"Court workers, lawyers, law enforcement officers and news media are exempt from the new rule."
The article linked to above points out that this policy is based on similar policies adopted in Licking and Lucas counties. The article also refers to a mistrial in Cuyahoga County Common Pleas Court. Judge John Russo found out that a juror had sent a text message to an attorney asking a legal question about the felonious assault case the juror was hearing.
The Erie County judges seem to be concerned about jurors and trial participants using cell phones and portable computers to take pictures of trial participants, do their own legal research while a trial is in progress, or text or record what witnesses are saying in order to allow other witnesses to tailor their testimony.
Similar bans have been adopted in other counties such as Stark County and Knox County. These bans are sometimes imposed just on participants in trials while other bans are more comprehensive, affecting everyone who comes into the courthouse.
So far the Ohio Supreme Court has not used its rule making power to adopt a comprehensive rule that would coverall Ohio counties and all Ohio courts. When you consider the diversity in Ohio among its 88 counties in terms of population and financial resources, it is hard to imagine the Ohio Supreme Court doing so in the near feature.
This rule could negatively impact people called for jury duty. Jurors often use their cell phones to talk with babysitters, other family members, and to keep up with work while they are on jury duty. Having to go to their car to use their cell phones or get them from court personnel might be more than a little inconvenient. It also might make people less willing to serve on juries.
Interestingly enough, the biggest problem that I have ever had as a judge with a juror using computers didn't involve a cell phone or laptop. It involved a juror going home one night during a two week medical malpractice, researching how often the defendant doctor had been sued for malpractice and then coming in the next day and sharing that information with the rest of the jury panel. The result was a mistrial and waste of thousands of dollars in trial expense for both parties. A ban on cell phones or laptop computers wouldn't have prevented the mistrial in that case.
If anyone knows of other counties which have instituted such bans, please send me information about the ban, and your reaction to it, at judgejameskimbler@yahoo.com. For more information on such bans in other parts of the United States, click here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
