They can explain it better than us . This is what they are saying on their blog
Judge Insights: Understanding the Forest and the Trees
The law is expressed in language, in the text of statutes and cases. Judicata helps lawyers to understand and argue the law with innovations such as Color and Outcome-Oriented Research. But the law’s application is achieved through people?—?by judges engaging lawyers to decide the fates of their clients.
Judges aren’t robots and they don’t arrive on the bench a blank slate. They’re individuals with experiences, beliefs, and emotions?—?lives outside of the law that inevitably influence their decision-making and make them each unique.
In mapping the legal genome, Judicata has charted an unprecedented amount of data on judicial behavior. We’re excited today to launch Judge Insights, a search and analytics tool that empowers lawyers to explore and understand the nuances of the judges they face.
A Tale of Two Judges
Judges pick sides in a dispute?—?between plaintiffs and defendants, appellants and appellees (referred to as respondents in California), and prosecutors and criminal defendants.
The average California Appellate Court Justice rules for appellants 26% of the time and criminal defendants 10% of the time, but doesn’t show a bias towards civil plaintiffs or defendants, siding almost exactly 50–50 with each.
These numbers indicate a strong pro-respondent and pro-prosecutor bias, which is good to be aware of as a litigator. But what is broadly true of judges as a whole, is not necessarily true of judges individually. While it’s valuable to see the forest, it’s also critical to understand the trees.
Take, for example, former Justice Paul Halvonik and current Justice Charles Poochigian. Knowing nothing about them, would you expect the same outcome in front of either?
Maybe you’d expect one Justice to be 25% more likely to side with an appellant? 50% more likely? Variation is surely to be expected, but what about a Justice being twice as likely to side with an appellant? Even that, however, would be a far cry from the reality: an appellant was nearly 6 times more likely to win on appeal before Justice Halvonik than Justice Poochigian!
This is a stark contrast, but perhaps a bit more understandable in light of their backgrounds:
- Justice Halvonik was California’s first state public defender. He was appointed to the California Courts of Appeal in 1978 by the Democratic Governor Jerry Brown, and was a leading contender for the state Supreme Court. His judicial career was cut short in 1979, however, when he was charged with drug offenses related to the possession of over 300 live marijuana plants.
- Justice Poochigian was a Republican California State Assemblyman from 1994 to 1998, before being elected to the California State Senate. In 2006 he ran for California Attorney General, but lost to Jerry Brown. Justice Poochigian was appointed to the California Courts of Appeal in 2009 by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, a Republican.
Although these distinctions suggest the truth of simple political stereotypes, the actual numbers are the most accurate window into an individual judge’s tendencies.
But context matters. A particular judge may rule differently depending on the type of case and the procedural posture.
Judicata’s legal genome and filter-based interface make it easy to explore these tendencies and to find opinions that illuminate how a judge is likely to rule in a particular context.
Judge Insights in Action
Consider Justice Sandra L. Margulies and the appeal of a demurrer.
Link to the blog for the example above and more
https://blog.judicata.com/judge-insights-understanding-the-forest-and-the-trees-c3164b767a4c
