11428980715_2ce4ce91e3_z

Today, we begin our analysis of a new subject – tracking the California Supreme Court’s experience with amicus curiae briefs.  The Court more closely tracks the experience of the United States Supreme Court than of other state Supreme Courts (including the Illinois Supreme Court, as reported in our Illinois Supreme Court Review) in its open-handed approach to amicus briefs.  Note that we consider multiple parties joining in a single brief to be a single amicus in our data below.

In Table 118 below, we report the total number of amicus briefs the Court has accepted each year in civil cases, divided between non-unanimous and unanimous decisions.  Not surprisingly, amicus briefs are quite common in cases which the Court winds up deciding with one or more dissents.  In 2000, amicus briefs in non-unanimous cases outnumbered briefs in unanimous cases 112 to 80.  The following year, the Court permitted 63 amicus briefs in non-unanimous decisions, and 88 in unanimous ones.  The following year, the two sides of the docket were evenly split – 69 briefs in non-unanimous decisions, 70 in unanimous ones.  In 2003, the Court accepted 83 amicus briefs in non-unanimous decisions, and 110 in unanimous ones.  The following year, amicus briefs in non-unanimous decisions outnumbered briefs in unanimous decisions 95 to 79.  In 2005, the trend reversed itself – the Court accepted 59 amicus briefs in non-unanimous decisions to 157 in unanimous cases.  For 2006, the Court accepted 42 amicus briefs in non-unanimous decisions, and 131 in unanimous cases.  For 2007, briefs were evenly split – 91 amicus briefs in non-unanimous decisions, 91 in unanimous decisions.

Table 118

We report the average amicus briefs per case in Table 119 below.  In 2000, the Court accepted an average of 3.84 additional briefs per case in civil matters. In 2001, the figure dipped slightly, to 3.15 briefs, and further still in 2002, to 2.9.  For 2003, amicus briefs increased to an average of 5.68 per case.  The following year, the Court accepted 3.35 additional briefs in each civil case.  For 2005, the average increased to 4.32 amicus briefs.  The pace of amicus briefs declined a bit in the following two years.  In 2006, the Court accepted 3.26 additional briefs per civil matter.  For 2007, the Court accepted 3.33 amicus briefs for each civil matter.

Table 119

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s experience with amicus briefs in criminal cases between 2000 and 2007.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Scrubhiker (no changes).

4337187600_ed662054af_z

Yesterday, we demonstrated that majority opinions have been getting somewhat longer on average in criminal cases at the California Supreme Court since 2007.  Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s majority opinions in automatic death penalty appeals.  These two inquiries are not entirely independent; yesterday we were working with overall criminal docket data, including the death penalty appeals.  However, in most years non-death cases significantly outnumber death penalty appeals, so it seems unlikely that trends in death penalty cases could completely explain changes in overall criminal opinions.

Nevertheless, the average majority opinion in death penalty cases has been edging up in recent years.  Between 2001 and 2005, majority opinions in death penalty cases were typically between 55 and 75 pages.  For example, in 2001, non-unanimous death penalty appeals averaged 76 pages to 80.4 in unanimous decisions.  In 2002, non-unanimous majorities averaged 55 pages to 74.11 for unanimous decisions.  In 2003, non-unanimous majorities averaged 70.67 pages to 61.75 for unanimous majorities.  In 2004, non-unanimous majorities averaged 73 pages to 62.53 for unanimous decisions.  In 2005, non-unanimous majorities averaged 55 pages to 77.32 for unanimous decisions.

We report the data for death penalty majority opinions between 2008 and 2015 in Table 117 below.  Opinion length was fairly flat in 2008 and 2009.  In 2008, non-unanimous majorities averaged 58.33 pages to 76.22 pages for unanimous decisions.  The next year, non-unanimous majorities were only slightly shorter, averaging 57.67 pages.  Unanimous majorities averaged 70.86 pages.  In the years since, non-unanimous majority opinions have increased in length somewhat, although unanimous majority opinions remained at about the same level.  In 2010, non-unanimous majority opinions averaged 112.5 pages, to 81.41 for unanimous majorities.  In 2011, non-unanimous majorities averaged 85.43 pages to 60.68 for unanimous decisions.  In 2012, non-unanimous majorities averaged 71 pages to 76.52 for unanimous decisions.

In 2013, non-unanimous majority opinions averaged 103 pages in death penalty appeals.  Unanimous majorities averaged 86.53 pages – a definite increase over the long-term trend.  In 2014, non-unanimous majority opinions averaged 90.5 pages to 83.75 pages for unanimous opinions.  Interestingly, in 2015, with two new members on the Court, the average length of majority opinions declined sharply.  Non-unanimous majority opinions averaged 68.75 pages, the lowest level since 2009.  Unanimous majority opinions averaged 60.46 pages – their lowest level since 2011.

Table 117

Join us back here next Thursday as we begin our consideration of a new issue in our continuing analysis of the decision-making of the California Supreme Court.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Gavin Johnson (no changes).

961537197_4f3906d213_z

For the past two weeks, we’ve been tracking trends in the length of majority opinions at the California Supreme Court.  Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s criminal opinions during the years 2008 to 2015.

In the title, we ask whether majority opinions are getting longer in criminal cases.  The answer is yes.  As we showed earlier, majority opinions between 2000 and 2007 typically averaged in the low thirties.  For example, in 2001, non-unanimous majority opinions averaged 26.11 pages to 31.45 pages for unanimous opinions.  The next year, non-unanimous opinions averaged 38.14 pages to 30.02 pages for unanimous opinions.  In 2003, non-unanimous opinions averaged 34.22 pages to 34.83 for unanimous opinions.  In 2004, non-unanimous opinions averaged 29.87 pages to 35.44 pages for unanimous opinions.  The first indications that opinions were getting longer came in 2007, when non-unanimous majority opinions jumped to 51.38 pages.

Once again, there was no consistent relationship for criminal cases between non-unanimous and unanimous decisions.  In 2008, majority opinions in non-unanimous criminal cases averaged 36.88 pages to 43.18 for unanimous decisions.  The following year, opinions were somewhat shorter; non-unanimous majorities averaged 32 pages, to 41.86 for unanimous decisions.  In 2010, both non-unanimous and unanimous majorities averaged above forty pages – 40.91 for non-unanimous decisions, 44 for unanimous decisions.  In 2011, non-unanimous majorities averaged 54.85 pages to 40.73 for unanimous majorities.  The following year, opinions were shorter, falling to 27.87 pages for non-unanimous majorities and 42.93 pages for unanimous decisions.  But in 2013 and the years since, opinions became longer again.  In 2013, non-unanimous majorities averaged 45.89 pages to 46.68 for unanimous majorities.  In 2014, non-unanimous majority opinions averaged 52.78 pages to 48.39 for unanimous majority opinions.  Last year, majority opinions in non-unanimous criminal cases averaged 42.91 pages, to 36.67 for unanimous majority opinions.

Table 116

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s majority opinions in automatic death penalty appeals between 2008 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Brewbooks (no changes).

174259121_7ca333df2b_z (1)

Last week, we began our analysis of the length of the Court’s majority opinions, addressing civil and criminal cases between 2000 and 2007.  Yesterday, we reviewed the Court’s majority opinions in death penalty appeals for the same period.  Today, we turn our attention to majority opinions in civil cases between 2008 and 2015.

Overall, there is evidence that the Court’s majority opinions are getting longer in civil cases.  Between 2000 and 2004, majority opinions in non-unanimous civil cases averaged 27.21 pages, 26.25 pages, 23.17 pages, 26 pages and 26.61 pages. Majority opinions in unanimous civil cases averaged somewhat less: 22.96 pages, 23.69 pages, 19.89 pages, 22.54 pages and 20.59 pages.  Between 2005 and 2007, majority opinions in non-unanimous cases started to get a bit longer, rising to 30.6 pages in 2005, but majorities in unanimous cases didn’t follow suit.

Non-unanimous majorities were up to 32.78 pages in 2008. Unanimous majorities that year averaged 24.33 pages. For 2009, majorities in non-unanimous decisions reached their highest level of the sixteen-year study period, averaging 41.29 pages.  Average majorities in unanimous decisions were down to 20.27 pages.  For 2010, majority opinions in non-unanimous cases were down to 22.44 pages, but unanimous majorities were up somewhat to 26.58 pages.

From 2011 through 2014, majority opinions in non-unanimous civil decisions got longer each year.  In 2011, non-unanimous majorities averaged 28.88 pages. Unanimous majorities were down to 22.2 pages. Non-unanimous majorities were up a bit more in 2012 to 29 pages.  Unanimous majorities were up to 27.53 pages. In 2013, non-unanimous majority opinions were up to 34.29 pages.  Unanimous majority opinions were down to 24.84 pages.  In 2014, majority opinions in non-unanimous civil decisions were up again, averaging 36 pages. Unanimous majority opinions were down slightly to 23.63 pages. Finally, in 2015, majority opinions in non-unanimous civil cases averaged 31.25 pages.  Majority opinions in unanimous civil decisions were only four pages shorter, averaging 27.14 pages.

Table 115

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn our attention to majority opinions in criminal cases between 2008 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Franco Folini (no changes).

 

12741168783_170d1746a5_z

Last week, we began addressing trends in the length of the Court’s majority opinions, reviewing civil and criminal majority opinions between 2000 and 2007.  Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s majority opinions in automatic death penalty appeals, with the data divided between non-unanimous and unanimous opinions.

As we show in Table 114 below, majority opinions in non-unanimous death penalty cases are not reliably longer than majorities in unanimously decided cases.  Nor were majority opinions getting longer during this period.  For 2000, non-unanimous majorities averaged 83.67 pages to 73.92 for unanimous decisions.  The next year, non-unanimous majorities were down a bit to 76 pages, while unanimous majorities were up about ten percent to 80.4 pages.  In 2002, non-unanimous majorities averaged 55 pages.  Unanimous majority opinions averaged 74.11 pages.  For 2003, non-unanimous majority opinions were back up to 70.67 pages.  Unanimous majority opinions were down to 61.75 pages.

In 2004, majority opinions in non-unanimous cases were up slightly to 73 pages, while unanimous decisions were flat at 62.53 pages. For 2005, non-unanimous majority decisions were down significantly to 55 pages, while unanimous majority opinions rose to an average of 77.32 pages.  For 2006, both sides of the ledger were up.  Non-unanimous majorities averaged 84.67 pages, while unanimous majority opinions averaged 88.75 pages.  Finally, in 2007, non-unanimous majority decisions were down slightly to 76.5 pages.  Unanimous majority opinions were down by about one-quarter, to an average of 64.74 pages.

Table 114

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to civil decisions from 2008 to 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by William Garrett (no changes).

1700161761_2f9ad1d30a_z

Yesterday, we began our review of the length of the California Supreme Court’s majority opinions, addressing the Court’s civil opinions between 2000 and 2007.  Today, we turn our attention to the Court’s majority opinions in criminal cases during the same period.

We report the data in Table 113 below.  Two things are evident: first, majority opinions are consistently longer on the criminal side than the civil side, almost entirely because of the influence of death penalty appeals.  Second, while majority opinions in non-unanimous cases are inevitably longer on the civil side, non-unanimous majorities are not generally longer on the criminal side.  For 2000, non-unanimous and unanimous criminal opinions were almost indistinguishable – non-unanimous majorities averaged 36 pages, while unanimous majorities averaged 35.35 pages. In 2001, the mean non-unanimous majority opinion was 26.11 pages, to 31.45 for unanimous decisions.  In 2002, the average non-unanimous majority had increased to 38.14 pages, while the average unanimous majority decision was flat at 30.02 pages.  In 2003, non-unanimous criminal majorities averaged 34.22 pages, to 34.83 pages on the unanimous side.  The following year, non-unanimous majorities had fallen slightly to 29.87 pages, while unanimous majorities were up a bit to 35.33 pages.  In 2005, non-unanimous majorities were flat, averaging 29.47 pages.  Majority opinions in unanimous cases, on the other hand, averaged 50.93 pages.  For 2006, non-unanimous majorities were up just a bit to 32.9 pages, and majority opinions in unanimous decisions were up to 55.63 pages.  In 2007, non-unanimous majority opinions were up sharply, averaging 51.38 pages.  Majority opinions in unanimous criminal decisions were back at their trend level, averaging 36.67 pages.

Table 113

Join us back here next week as we turn our attention to the Court’s death penalty decisions, and then to the Court’s majority opinions between 2008 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Nick Ares (no changes).

218926074_4a124aca76_z

Last week, we completed our examination of reversal rates and average votes to affirm, District by District of the Court of Appeal.  This week, we turn our attention to another issue: the length of the Court’s opinions.  For context, the average majority opinion from the Illinois Supreme Court, the other court we closely follow, averages between twelve and eighteen pages in most years.

We report the average length of majority opinions in civil cases, year by year, in Table 112 below, divided between non-unanimous and unanimous decisions.  Not surprisingly, opinions in divided cases were inevitably at least a few pages longer.  In 2000, the average majority opinion in non-unanimous civil cases was 27.21 pages, to 22.96 for unanimous decisions.  The following year, non-unanimous majorities were down slightly to 26.25 pages, but unanimous decisions were up a bit to 23.69 pages.  For 2002, majority opinions in non-unanimous cases averaged 23.17 pages.  Majorities in unanimous decisions reached their lowest average of these years at only 19.89 pages.  For 2003, majorities in non-unanimous civil decisions averaged 26 pages, while unanimous majorities averaged 22.54 pages.  The next year, non-unanimous majorities averaged 26.61 pages, to 20.59 pages for unanimous decisions.

From 2005 to 2007, majority opinions in non-unanimous civil cases rose to their highest levels of the period, averaging 30.6 pages in 2005, 30.15 pages in 2006 and 28.29 pages in 2007.  But majority opinions in unanimous cases didn’t follow suit.  In 2005, the average unanimous majority was 22.95 pages.  In 2006, the average was 25.87 pages, but in 2007, it was down to 22.03 pages.

Table 112

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s majority opinions in criminal cases during the same years.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Ken Lund (no changes).

 

9118713795_560b2a140d_z

For the past week, we’ve been refining our analysis of the reversal rates of each District and Division of the Court of Appeal by tracking the average votes to affirm of each District and Division before the Supreme Court.  Today, we address the average votes to affirm in criminal cases between 2008 and 2015.  As before, we use three-year floating averages.

Division One of the First District performed quite well during this period, averaging 6.33 votes to affirm in 2008 and 2009 and 7 votes in 2010, 2014 and 2015.  Division Two has been well under the statewide average, with 1.4 average votes to affirm in 2008, 2 in 2009, 2.67 in 2010, 0.75 in 2011, 1.5 in 2012 and 1.8 in 2013.  Division Three of the First District was frequently unanimously affirmed early in the period, averaging seven votes to affirm from 2008 through 2011.  Division Four of the First District averaged six votes to affirm from 2009 through 2011 and seven votes in 2012, but 3.5 in 2013, 2014 and 2015.  Division Five of the First District did relatively well between 2010 and 2012 – 4.4 votes in 2010, 5.2 in 2011, 3.43 in 2012 – before falling to one in 2013, 2.5 in 2014 and 2.33 in 2015.

Division One of the Second District has seen its average votes to affirm increase over the past few years, from zero in 2008, 2009 and 2010, to 2.5 in 2011, 3 in 2012, 4.17 in 2013, 4 in 2014 and 5 in 2015.  For the most part, Division Two of the Second District has fared well in criminal matters, with 3.5 average votes to affirm in 2008 and 2009, 7 in 2014 and 3.5 in 2015.  Division Three was frequently reversed in the early part of the period, with average votes to affirm of 1.25 in 2008, zero in 2009, 1.5 in 2010 and 2.25 in 2011, before rising to 3 in 2012, 6 in 2013, 6.67 in 2014 and 7 in 2015.  Division Four of the Second District fared well early, with four votes to affirm in 2008, 3.75 in 2009, 4.25 in 2010 and 3.33 in 2011, but has fallen off since.  District Five has been increasing lately, averaging 3.17 votes in 2012, 4.75 in 2013 and 3.5 in 2014.  Division Six has averaged fewer than five votes to affirm in five of the eight years – 1.33 in 2008, 1.17 in 2009, 1.5 in 2010, 1.75 in 2014 and 0 in 2015.  Division Seven of the Second District has averaged consistently below the statewide average – 2.43 in 2008, 1.86 in 2009, 2 in 2010, 1 in 2011, 1 in 2013, and 3 in 2014 and 2015.  Division Eight has been below the statewide average as well, although higher than Division Seven – 2.67 in 2009, 4 in 2010, 3.33 in 2011, 3.25 in 2012, 3.33 in 2013, 2.75 in 2014 and 3.5 in 2015.

Table 110

The Third District has fared as well as any District in the state in criminal cases between 2008 and 2015.  The court averaged 2.62 votes to affirm in 2008, 3.31 in 2009, 4.1 in 2010, 4.24 in 2011, 4.32 in 2012, 4 votes in 2013, 4.14 in 2014 and 3.5 in 2015.  Division One of the Fourth District has generally averaged somewhat below the statewide average – 2.33 votes in 2008, 3.11 in 2009, 3.08 in 2010, 2.64 in 2011, 2.44 in 2012, 1.75 in 2013, 1.87 votes in 2014 and 2.25 votes in 2015.  Division Two fared well early in these years – 3.1 votes to affirm in 2008, 3.8 in 2009, 4.56 in 2010, 3.63 in 2011 and 3.3 in 2012 – before tailing off recently: 1.38 votes to affirm in 2013, 2.14 in 2014 and 0.86 in 2015.  Division Three has been the same, with four votes to affirm in 2009 and 2010, 5.6 in 2011 and 3.5 in 2012, before falling to 1.75 in 2013, 0.88 in 2014 and 2.13 in 2015. 

The Fifth District has been slightly below the statewide average, with 2.57 votes to affirm in 2008, 3.5 from 2009 to 2011, 2.22 in 2012, 3.25 in 2013 and 2.78 in 2014, before rising to 4.75 in 2015.  The Sixth District has usually been below the statewide average in recent years as well, falling from 4.55 in 2009 to 2.9 in 2010, 2.78 in 2011, 2.29 in 2012, 2.9 in 2013, 2.17 in 2014 and only two votes to affirm in 2015.

Almost entirely because of death penalty appeals, direct appeals from the Circuit Courts have consistently led the state in average votes to affirm on the criminal side.  In 2008, direct appeals averaged 5.46 votes to affirm. The next year, the average was 5.48.  In 2010, the average was 5.61, 5.91 in 2011, 5.76 in 2012, 5.74 in 2013, 5.11 in 2014 and 4.77 in 2015.

Table 111

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn our attention to another subject – the evolving composition of the Court’s civil and criminal dockets by area of law.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Tri Nguyen (no changes).

6200072018_3bfbdea2df_z

Last week, we began another phase of our analysis of the standing of the Courts of Appeal in the California Supreme Court’s decision making, calculating three-year floating average votes to affirm each District of the Court of Appeal in civil and criminal cases.  Today, we begin the second half of that analysis with the civil cases between 2008 and 2015.

Division One of the First District was below the statewide average for several years early in the period, averaging zero votes to affirm in 2008 and 1.4 in 2009 and 2010, but has done much better since, with an average of seven votes to affirm in 2011, 2013 and 2014, and 4.67 votes in 2015.  Division Two has done the same.  In 2008, the Court averaged 0.8 votes to affirm.  It averaged 3.33 in 2009 and 3.5 from 2010 through 2012, before rising to 6.5 in 2013 and 2014, and 6 in 2015.  Division Three was likewise below the statewide average for the most of the period, averaging 4.2 votes to affirm in 2008, 3.5 in 2009, 2.5 in 2010, 3.25 in 2011 and 3 in 2012, before briefly rising in 2013 and 2014.  Division Four has been below the statewide average throughout these years, with votes to affirm of 2.6 in 2008, 4.67 in 2009, 3.33 in 2010, 2.86 in 2011, 3.14 in 2012, 3.2 in 2013, 2.25 in 2014 and zero in 2015.  Division Five followed a similar path, with average votes to affirm of 2.33 in 2009 and zero from 2010 through 2013, before rising to 3.5 in 2014 and 2015.

Division One of the Second District fared quite well between 2008 and 2010, averaging 4, 4.67 and 4.67 votes to affirm, but has fallen off since, with 1.75 votes in 2011, 1.17 in 2012, 2.63 in 2013, 2.33 in 2014 and 2.5 in 2015.  Division Two of the Second District averaged five votes to affirm 2010 and 6.5 in 2011 and 2012, before falling to zero in 2013 and 2.33 in 2014 and 2015.  Division Three of the Second District averaged below two votes to affirm in 2008, 2009 and 2011 (1.25, 1.18 and 1.75) and under three in 2010, 2012 and 2013 (2, 2.71 and 2.57), before rising to four votes in 2014 and 2015.  Division Four of the Second District has been below the statewide average throughout these years, at 3.43 votes in 2008 and 3.75 in 2009, 2.5 in 2010, 1.5 in 2011, 2 in 2012, 1.57 in 2013, 2.5 in 2014 and 1.6 votes to affirm in 2015.  Division Five has consistently been below the statewide average as well: 2.39 votes to affirm in 2008, 2.33 in 2009, 2 in 2011, 0.88 in 2012, 0.14 in 2013, 2 votes in 2014 and 2.33 in 2015.  Division Six hasn’t fared much better.  The court averaged only two votes to affirm in 2008, 1 in 2009, 1.75 in 2010 and 2011.  The court rose to 3.5 votes in 2012, but fell to zero in 2013 and 1.5 in 2014 and 2015.  Division Seven averaged three votes to affirm in 2008 and four in 2009, before falling to 2.33 in 2010, 1.17 in 2011, zero in 2012 and 1.75 votes to affirm in 2013. The court rose to seven votes to affirm 2014 and 3.5 in 2015.  Division Eight has fared somewhat better than other Divisions of the Second District, but has still been below the statewide average nearly start to finish: 3.25 votes in 2008, 3.14 in 2009, 2 in 2010, 1.71 in 2011, zero in 2012, 3.5 in 2013 and 2015, and 4.3 in 2015.

Table 108

In Table 109, we report the data for the rest of the state.  The Third District has fared below the statewide average, with 3.13 votes in 2008, 3.45 in 2009 and 2.14 in 2010.  Since that time, the court has remained below an average of 2 votes to affirm – 1 in 2011, 0.17 in 2012, 0.25 in 2013, 0.6 in 2014 and 1.8 in 2015.  The First Division of the Fourth District was at the statewide average between 2008 and 2010 (3.47 in 2008, 3.33 in 2009, 3.86 in 2010), before falling to 3 in 2011, 2 in 2012, 1.17 in 2013, 1.5 in 2014 and 2.8 in 2015.  Division Two of the Fourth District has for the most part fared well at the Court – 4.22 votes to affirm in 2008, 3 votes in 2009, 3.5 in 2012, 5.25 in 2013, 6.5 in 2014 and 3.33 in 2015.

Division Three of the Fourth District was consistently above the statewide average from 2008 to 2011, with 4.75 votes to affirm in 2008, 5.63 in 2009, 5.13 in 2010 and 4.11 in 2011.  The court fell to 1.63 votes in 2012, 0.83 in 2013, 0.5 in 2014 and 2 votes to affirm in 2015.  Both the Fifth and Sixth Districts have been consistently below the statewide average.  The Fifth District averaged 1.33 votes to affirm in 2008, 2 votes in 2009, zero in 2010 and 2012, 3.5 in 2013 and 2.8 in 2014, before rising to 4.2 in 2015.  The Sixth District was below three votes to affirm in every year from 2008 to 2014 – 2.5 in 2008, 2.33 in 2009, 2.55 in 2010, 2.92 in 2011, 2.9 in 2012, 2.14 in 2013 and 1.6 votes in 2014, before rising to 3.5 in 2015.  The Court has heard comparatively few direct appeals on the civil side, but has averaged six votes to affirm in 2009, 7 in 2010, 6.5 in 2011 and 7 in 2012.

Table 109

Join us back here tomorrow as we review the Court’s average votes to affirm for the Districts and Divisions of the Court of Appeal in criminal cases between 2008 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Channone Arif (no changes).

 

3348568229_e926de1707_z

Yesterday, we turned our attention to the average votes to affirm in civil cases the Districts of the Court of Appeal in civil cases at the California Supreme Court between 2000 and 2007.  Today, we address the average votes to affirm on the criminal side of the docket during those same years.

Not surprisingly, most Districts of the Court of Appeal consistently averaged a higher votes-to-affirm in criminal cases than they did in civil matters.  Division One of the First District is typical, averaging six votes in 2002, 4 in 2005 and 2006, and 6.33 in 2007.  Division Two fared less well – an average of five votes to affirm in the three-year floating average for 2002, but 3.75 in 2003, 2.67 in 2004, 2 in 2005, 0.67 in 2006 and 0.4 in 2007.  Division Three of the First District had consistently high votes to affirm – an average of six in 2002 and 2003, 6.67 in 2004, 5.33 in 2005, 5.75 in 2006 and 5 in 2007.  Division Four of the First District was a bit below the statewide average during these years, averaging 3.33 votes in 2002 and 2003, 4.4 in 2004, 4.5 in 2005 and 4 votes in 2006 and 2007.  Division Five did slightly worse – 3.33 votes in 2002, 3.25 in 2003 and down to 2.8 in 2004 before rising to 3.5 in 2005, 3.6 in 2006 and 3.67 in 2007.

Division One of the Second District was consistently well below the statewide average for criminal cases.  In 2002, the court averaged 1.58 votes to affirm.  The next year, the figure had dropped 1.14.  In 2004, the court’s average was 1.13.  Division Two had high numbers between 2002 and 2005 – 4.4 in 2002, 5 in 2003, 7 in 2004 and 5.5 in 2005 – before tailing off.  Division Three was consistently right around the statewide average for criminal cases, averaging 4.5 votes in 2002, 5 votes in 2004, 5.5 in 2005 and 4.75 in 2006.  Division Four was only slightly behind that, averaging 4.2 votes in 2003, 4.33 in 2004 and 3.8 in 2005.  Divisions Five, Six and Seven, however, were well below statewide averages.  In 2002, Division Five averaged 2.29 votes.  The average rose to 3.2 in 2003, but fell back to 2.25 in 2004.  Division Six was generally between two and three votes – 1.8 in 2002, 2 in 2004, 3 in 2005, 2.33 in 2006 and 2.67 in 2007.  Division Seven was similar: 2.63 in 2002, 2.6 in 2003, 1.9 in 2004, 1.73 in 2005, 2.14 in 2006 and 3.25 in 2007.  The Court heard only five criminal cases from Division Eight during these years, and the Court averaged 4.2 votes in 2005, dropping to 1.33 in 2006 and 2.2 in 2007.

Table 106

The Third District performed well in the first half of the period before tailing off.  In 2002, the court averaged 3.5 votes to affirm.  In 2003, the court averaged 4.19 votes, 3.53 in 2004, 3.11 in 2005, before dropping to 2.22 in 2006 and 2 votes in 2007.

Division One of the Fourth District was generally right around the statewide average during these years, at 3.93 votes in 2002, 3.67 in 2003, 3.48 in 2004, 3.79 in 2005 and 3.27 in 2006, before falling to 2.33 in 2007.  Division Two of the Fourth District was even higher: 3.8 votes in 2002, 4.33 in 2003, 4.2 in 2004, 4.67 in 2005, 3.5 votes in 2006 and 3.71 votes in 2007.  Division Three, on the other hand, tended to be below the statewide average, at 2.33 votes in 2002, 1.75 in 2003, 1.38 in 2004, and 2.45 in 2005, before rising to 3.5 in 2006 and 4.38 in 2007.

The Fifth District was consistently below the statewide average throughout these years.  The court averaged 1.38 votes to affirm in 2002, 2.81 in 2003 and 2004, 3.41 in 2005, 2.91 in 2006 and 2.16 in 2007.  The Sixth District almost always fared below the statewide average too; the court averaged 4.1 votes to affirm in 2002, 2.86 in 2003, 1.2 in 2004, 1.0 in 2005, 2.2 in 2006 and 3.36 votes in 2007.

Direct appeals from the Circuit Court, on the other hand, have consistently fared very well.  In 2002, direct appeals averaged 5.34 votes to affirm.  In 2003, direct appeals averaged 4.82 votes.  In 2004, it was 4.81, 5.25 in 2005, 5.51 in 2006 and 5.68 in 2007.

Table 107

Join us back here next Wednesday as we turn our attention to the average votes to affirm in the Courts of Appeal between 2008 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Bert Kaufmann (no changes).