3208748350_2ed0d4ca83_z (2)

Last week, we completed our analysis of the reversal rates of each District and Division of the Court of Appeal.  Today, we begin our analysis of a related question: which Districts and Divisions have averaged the most votes to affirm the Court of Appeal’s decision each year?  Obviously, there’s a big difference between Districts which were routinely affirmed by a unanimous or near-unanimous Court, and Districts with an average votes-to-affirm of 3.6.

In Table 104 below, we report the three-year floating averages of votes to affirm, District by District.  Division One of the First District was right around the same level throughout the period – in 2002, it averaged 4.43 votes to affirm; in 2003, it averaged 4.57; the next year, it averaged 4.88; in 2005, it averaged 5.29 votes; in 2006, the court averaged 6 votes to affirm; and in 2007, the court averaged 2.83 votes to affirm.  Division Two of the First District, on the other hand, was much more variable.  Division Two averaged 4.5 votes to affirm in 2003 and 4.8 in 2004.  The court averaged 3.3 in 2005, 1.6 in 2006 and 0.8 votes to affirm in 2007.  Division Three of the First District averaged 5.25 votes to affirm in 2002 and 2003.  The court averaged 2.33 votes in 2006 and 3.6 in 2007.  Division Four of the First District was consistently under the statewide average – 1.33 votes to affirm in 2002; 2.71 in 2003, 2.38 in 2004 and 2.67 in 2005, and 1.2 votes in 2006 and 1.5 votes to affirm in 2007.  The Fifth Division was under the statewide average for the first half of the period – 2.33 in 2002, 1.8 in 2003, 1.86 in 2004, followed by 3.22 votes in 2005, 4.18 in 2006 and 4.5 in 2007.

For the most part, Division One of the Second District was below the statewide average.  That court averaged 2.36 votes to affirm in 2002, 1.13 in 2003, 1.75 in 2004, 2.43 in 2005, 3.29 in 2006 and 1.8 in 2007.  Division Two of the Second District was, for the most part, over the statewide average, at 3.75 votes in 2002 and 2003, 4 votes in 2004, 2.5 votes in 2005, 2 votes in 2006 and 2.29 votes in 2007.  Division Three of the Second District was right around the statewide average – 2.92 votes in 2002, 3.1 in 2003, 3.2 in 2004, 4 votes in 2005, 4.18 votes in 2006 and 3.1 votes in 2007.  Division Four of the Second District has been consistently below the statewide vote average.  In 2002, the court averaged 1.7 votes.  In 2003, the court averaged 1.22 votes; in 2004, it averaged 2.11, and in 2005, the court averaged 2.22 votes.  In 2006, the court averaged 3 votes to affirm.  Finally, in 2007, the court averaged 3.63 votes to affirm.  Division Five of the Second District consistently performed well – 3.2 votes to affirm in 2003, 3.86 in 2004 and 2005, 3.25 votes in 2006 and 2.07 in 2007.  Division Six consistently declined from 2004 to 2007 – four votes to affirm in 2004, 3.5 in 2005, 1.5 in 2006 and 2 votes in 2007.  Division Seven of the Second District was repeatedly below the statewide average.  The court was below two votes to affirm from 2002 through 2005 – 1.71 in 2002, 1.5 in 2003, 0.55 in 2004 and 1.38 in 2005.  In 2006, the court averaged two votes to affirm.  The next year, the court averaged 3.8 votes to affirm.

Table 104

The Third District consistently ranked below the statewide average during these years – 1.67 votes to affirm in 2002, 1.6 in 2003, 2.15 in 2004, 1.67 in 2005, 1.64 in 2006 and 2.44 votes in 2007.  The First Division of the Fourth District, on the other hand, fared quite well at the Court during this period – 4.11 votes in 2002, 4 in 2003, 4.82 votes in 2004, 4.18 in 2005, 4.6 votes in 2006 and 3.4 in 2007.  Division Two of the Fourth District was above the average for the first half of the period, but below afterwards.  For 2002, Division Two averaged 4.45 votes.  In 2003, the court averaged 4.86, and in 2004, the court averaged 5.25.  In 2005, the court averaged 3.77 votes.  The next year, the court averaged 3.5 votes, and in 2007, the court averaged 3.46 votes.

Division Three of the Fourth District was generally below the statewide average – 2.8 votes in 2002, 2.33 in 2003, 2.78 in 2004, 2.13 in 2005, 2.83 in 2006 and 3 votes in 2007.  The Fifth District was only slightly higher, averaging 2.67 votes in 2002 and 2.86 in 2003; four votes in 2004, 3.89 in 2005, 3.11 in 2006 and 2.89 votes in 2007.

The Sixth District had a comparatively rough time during these years.  The court averaged 2.83 votes to affirm in 2002, 1 vote in 2003 and 2004, 0.57 votes in 2005, 1 vote in 2006 and two votes in 2007.

Table 105

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s three-year floating average reversal rates on the criminal side between 2002 and 2007.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Gosheshe (no changes).

2024103448_14b4782d3a_z

Today, we complete our two-week review of the reversal rates of the Districts and Divisions of the Courts of Appeal in civil and criminal cases between 2000 and 2015.

The Court has heard only two criminal cases from Division One of the First District between 2008 and 2015.  Both were affirmed.  Division Two of the First District has had a more difficult time before the Court, with a three-year floating reversal rate of 75% in 2008 and 2009, 100% in 2011, 83.33 in 2012, 80% in 2013, and two-thirds in 2014.  Like Division One, Division Three of the First District has had almost no cases at all on the Court’s criminal docket, and has had a reversal rate of zero from 2008 through 2013.  Division Four, on the other hand, had a reversal rate of 100% in 2008, zero until 2012, and 50% from 2013 through 2015.  Division Five of the First District had a reversal rate of only 40% in 2010 and 25% in 2011, but has steadily risen since, to 57.14% in 2012, 100% in 2013, 75% in 2014 and 66.67 in 2015.

Division One of the Second District has had a three-year floating reversal rate of 100% between 2008 and 2010, one third in 2012, forty percent from 2013 to 2014, and 25% in 2015.  The reversal rate for Division Two of the Second District was 100% in 2010 and 2011, before falling to zero from 2012 through 2014.  The reversal rate at Division Three fell as time went on as well – 100% in 2008 and 2009, 80% in 2011, 50% in 2012 and zero for 2013 through 2015.  Division Four of the Second District has followed the opposite path, low in the first half of the period, higher in the second half.  The court’s reversal rate was 20% in 2008, 37.5% in 2009, half in 2010 and 2012, 75% in 2013, 80% in 2014 and 100% in 2015.

The reversal rate in Division Five of the Second District was about the statewide average between 2008 and 2011: half in 2008, two-thirds in 2009 and 2010, and 60% in 2011 – before falling to one-third in 2012, 25% in 2013, and half in 2014.  The reversal rate for Division Six, on the other hand, was above the statewide average for most of the period.  In 2008 and 2009, Division Six had a reversal rate of 83.33%.  In 2010, the rate was 100%.  The rate was 85.71% in 2011, 71.43% in 2012, 50% in 2013, 75% in 2014 and 100% in 2015.  The reversal rate for Division Seven was generally above the statewide average too – 57.14% in 2008, 71.43% in 2009, 100% in 2011 and 2013, and 75% in 2014 and 2015.

Division Eight of the Second District was above the statewide average for the first half of the period, but slightly below for the second half.  The court saw two-thirds of its criminal decisions reversed in 2008 and 2009, 100% in 2010 and 2011, three-quarters in 2012, and half from 2013 through 2015.

Table 102A

Division Three performed quite well throughout these years.  In 2008, the court’s reversal rate was two-thirds, but in 2009, the rate was 56.25%.  The rate fell to 47.62% in 2010, 47.06% in 2011, 45% in 2012, and 46.67% in 2013, 40% in 2014 and half in 2015.  Division One of the Fourth District was consistently above the statewide average reversal rate, on the other hand.  The court’s reversal rate was 61.54% in 2010, 71.43% in 2011, 73.68% in 2012, 81.25% in 2013, 80% in 2014 and two-thirds in 2015.

Division Two of the Fourth District, on the other hand, was generally below the statewide average reversal rate.  The rate was 50% in 2008,40% in 2009 and 33.33% in 2010 before rising in the most recent years.  Division Three was below average for the first half of the period, but equal to or above average afterwards.  Division Three’s reversal rate was 50% in 2008, 42.86% in 2009 and 2010, 20% in 2011, and 50% in 2012, before rising to 75% in 2013, 87.5% in 2014 and 75% in 2015.

Division Five, on the other hand, was very close to the statewide average from close to finish.  The court’s reversal rate was 57.14% in 2008, 50% for 2009 through 2011, 66.67% in 2012, half in 2013, and 55.56% in 2014, before falling to only 25% in 2015.  The Sixth District was close to the statewide average from start to finish as well – the court’s reversal rate was 54.55% in 2008, 36.36% in 2009, 50% in 2010 and 55.56% in 2011, before rising to 71.43% in 2012, 60% in 2013, 66.67% in 2014 and three-quarters in 2015.

Table 103A

Next week we’ll begin another new phase of our analysis – which Districts and Divisions of the Court of Appeal have the most (and fewest) votes to affirm their decisions in civil and criminal decisions?

Image courtesy of Flickr by Jack Wolf (no changes).

2484476484_4a2448dbbc_z

Last week, we began reviewing the reversal rate of each District (and Division) of the Courts of Appeal in civil and criminal cases.  We began with the years 2000 through 2007.  This week, we analyze the data for the years 2008 through 2015.

Division One of the First District has fared quite well for the most part before the Court between 2008 and 2015.  Although the court had a reversal rate of 100% in 2008, the rate fell to 50% in 2010, zero from 2011 through 2014, and 33.33% in 2015.  Division Two has done quite well too, with a reversal rate of fifty percent from 2010 to 2012, and zero from 2013 through 2015.  Division Three’s performance was similar – fifty percent in 2011 and 2012, zero in 2013 and 2014 and fifty percent in 2015.  Division Four fared slightly better than the statewide average between 2008 and 2013 – 60% in 2008, 50% in 2010, 57.14% in 2011 and 2012 – before rising to a reversal rate of sixty percent in 2013, three-quarters in 2014 and one hundred percent in 2015.  Division Five, on the other hand, had a three-year floating reversal rate of 100% from 2010 through 2013.

Division One of the Second District performed better than the statewide average early in this period.  The court’s reversal rate was only 40% in 2008, and 33.33% in 2009 and 2010.  But the court’s reversal rate jumped to 75% in 2011, 83.33% in 2012, and between 60% and two-thirds between 2013 and 2015.  Division Two of the Second District was at the same level for the most part, with a reversal rate of 66.67% in 2008, 60% in 2009, and 66.67% in 2014 and 2015.  During the middle years, the court’s reversal rate was considerably less – 25% in 2010 and zero in 2011 and 2012.  Division Three of the Second District ran above the statewide average, with a three-quarters reversal rate in 2008, 81.82% in 2009, two-thirds in 2010 and 70% in 2011, before falling to 42.86% in 2014 and 2015.  Division Four of the Second District was just the opposite – slightly below the statewide average in 2008 and 2009, but above in the years since, with a reversal rate of 100% in 2010 and 2011, 83.33% in 2012, 85.71% in 2013, two-thirds in 2014 and three-quarters in 2015.

Division Five of the Second District has, for the most part, run higher than the statewide average, with a reversal rate of 72.22% in 2008, three-quarters in 2009, 87.5 in 2012, 100% in 2013 and two-thirds in 2014 and 2015.  Division Six was above the statewide average too – three-quarters between 2009 and 2011, and 100% from 2013 through 2015.

Divisions Seven and Eight of the Second District, on the other hand, have been below the statewide reversal rate for the most part.  Division Seven had a reversal rate of only 50% in 2008, and one-third in 2009.  The court’s reversal rate rose to 83.33% in 2011 and 100% in 2012 before falling to zero in 2014 and 50% in 2015.  Division Eight of the Second District spiked at the same time as Division Seven did – two-thirds in 2010, 71.43% in 2011, 100% in 2012, but fifty percent in 2013 and 2014 and a reversal rate of only 40% in 2015.

Table 100

Division Three has not performed well at the Court during these years.  The court’s reversal rate was just below 60% in 2008 and 2009, before rising to 71.43% in 2010, 88.89% in 2011, 100% from 2012 through 2014 and 80% in 2015.  Division One of the Fourth District was well below the statewide average from 2008 through 2010 – 53.33% in 2008, 55.56% in 2009, 50% in 2010 – but has been a bit above the statewide average since, with a reversal rate of 83.33% in 2013, 75% in 2014 and 60% in 2015.  Division Two of the Fourth District has consistently performed better than the statewide average, with a reversal rate of 50% in 2012, 25% in 2013, zero in 2014 and 50% in 2015.  Division Three of the Fourth District was well below the statewide average reversal rate for the first half of the period before drifting up – 25% in 2008, 12.5% in 2009, 25% in 2010, 44.4% in 2011 – and 87.5% in 2012, 100% in 2013 and 2014, and two-thirds in 2015.  The Fifth District has been the reverse – worse than the statewide rate for the first half of the period, a bit better for the second half.  In 2008, the Fifth District’s reversal rate was 83.33%, 75% in 2009, and 100% in 2010 and 2012, but 50% in 2013, 60% in 2014 and 40% in 2015.  The Sixth District, on the other hand, has performed worse than the statewide average almost from start to finish – 75% in 2008, 66.67% in 2009, 63.64% in 2010, 71.43% in 2013, 80% in 2014 and 50% in 2015.

Table 101

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s reversal rates for the criminal side of the docket.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Tony Webster (no changes).

7616749922_8709323f7c_z

Yesterday, we addressed the District-by-District three-year floating reversal rates in civil cases in the Courts of Appeal from 2002 through 2007.  Today we turn our attention to the performance of the Courts of Appeal in criminal cases.

Division Two of the First District improved its performance consistently through these years – from one-quarter affirmance in 2002, to half in 2003, to two-thirds in 2004, to one hundred percent from 2005 through 2007.  Many of Division Three’s cases were reversed – zero affirmance in 2002 through 2004, one-third in 2005, one-quarter in 2006 and half in 2007.  Division Four slipped below fifty percent affirmance between 2004 and 2006.  Division Five was at one-half affirmance in 2003 and 2005, sixty percent in 2004 and forty percent in 2006.

Nearly all decisions of Division One of the Second District were affirmed during these years – 83.33% in 2002, 100% between 2003 and 2006.  Less than half of Division Two’s cases were affirmed between 2002 and 2004, but all of them were for 2005 and 2006.  For Division Three of the Second District, 37.5% were affirmed in 2002, 33.33% in 2004, one-quarter in 2005 and half in 2006.  The affirmance rate for Division Four of the Second District hovered around the statewide average throughout these years.  For Division Five, 71.43% were affirmed in 2002, three-quarters in 2004 and one hundred percent in 2005-2007.

Most of the criminal decisions from Divisions Six and Seven of the Second District were affirmed.  The three-year floating reversal rate for Division Six in 2003 was one hundred percent.  The rate was eighty percent in 2004 and 2006, three-quarters in 2005 and two-thirds in 2007.  In 2004 and 2005, 71.43% and three-quarters of the decisions from Division Seven were affirmed.  Finally, half of the decisions from Division Eight were affirmed in 2005, two-thirds in 2006 and sixty percent in 2007.

Table 98A

Division Three’s criminal decisions have fared better as the period wore on – fifty percent affirmed in 2002, one-third in 2003, 47.37% in 2004, 55.56% in 2005, 70% in 2006 and 72.73% in 2007.  Division One of the Fourth District has consistently had about half of its criminal decisions affirmed during these years – 50% in 2003, 52.38% in 2004, half in 2005 and 54.55% in 2006.  Division Two of the Fourth District has had less than half of its criminal decisions affirmed in most years – 40% in 2002 and 2004, one-third in 2003 and 2005, half in 2006 and 42.86% in 2007.  Division Three of the Fourth District has seen between two-thirds and three-quarters of its criminal decisions affirmed.  The Fifth District has performed at about the statewide average – 60% in 2002, 56.25% in 2003 and 2004, 52.94% in 2005, 63.64% in 2006 and 69.23% in 2007.  The Sixth District started slowly, but has improved throughout the period – 40% three-year weighted affirmance in 2002, 57.14% in 2003, 80% in 2004, 100% in 2005, 70% in 2006, and 63.64% in 2007.

Not surprisingly – given that the classification includes automatic death penalty appeals – comparatively few direct appeals have ended in affirmance.  Only 14.63% of direct appeals were affirmed in 2002.  Only 20.41% were in 2003, and only 20.97% in 2004.  Between 2005 and 2007, less than one in five direct appeals were affirmed: 16% in 2005, 15.07% in 2006 and 14.67% in 2007.

Table 99A

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn our attention to the Court of Appeal’s reversal rates between 2008 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Justin Vidamo (no changes).

15243053769_9cda539123_z

Last week, we finished reviewing the voting patterns of the California Supreme Court in automatic death penalty appeals – how often was the Court’s decision unanimous, and how often did the Court have zero and one dissenter?  This week, we turn to the District-by-District reversal rates of the Courts of Appeal.

Because the districts of the Court of Appeal typically hear only a few cases every year, we report floating three-year average reversal rates rather than year-by-year data.  In Table 96, we report the data for the First and Second Districts.  Division One of the First District has had a high reversal rate throughout these years.  Only twenty percent of Division One’s cases were affirmed in 2000, 2001 and 2002.  The three-year rate in 2003 was only 40%.  The following year, the rate was one in three.  In 2005, 42.86% of the Court’s decisions were affirmed.  By 2006, only one quarter were.  Most of Division Two’s cases, on the other hand, were affirmed – 55.56% in 2002, 60% in 2003, half in 2004, two-thirds in 2005, 80% in 2006 and 100% in 2007.  Division Three of the First District remained below 50% affirmance for most of this period, while Division Four was between three fifths and one hundred percent.  Division Five of the First District varied widely – one-third affirmance in 2002, sixty percent the next year, 71.43% in 2004, 55.56% in 2005, 36.36% the next year and 30% in 2007.

Division One of the Second District had most of its cases affirmed throughout this period – two-thirds in 2002 and 2004, 57.14% in 2005 and 2006, and four fifths in 2007.  Although only a third of the decisions from Division Two of the Second District were affirmed in 2002 and 2003, the rate reached 71.43% by 2007.  Division Three of the Second District was frequently reversed – 58.33% affirmance (about average) in 2003 and 2004, 46.15% in 2005, 36.36% in 2006 and half in 2007.  Affirmance rates were consistently above one half for Divisions Four and Five.  Division Six’s performance improved towards the end of the period – one-third in 2002 and 2004, half in 2005, three-quarters in 2006 and 60% in 2007.

Division Seven of the Second District has performed as well as any Court in the First and Second Districts during these years.  As of 2002, 85.71% of Division Seven’s cases had been affirmed.  In 2003 and 2005, 87.5% were affirmed.  As of 2006, 77.78% of the Court’s decisions were affirmed.  Only one-third of Division Eight’s cases were affirmed as of 2006 and 2007.

Table 96A

We report the affirmance and reversal rates for the remaining Courts of Appeal in Table 97 below.

The affirmance rate for Division Three has remained high throughout these years – 90% in 2002, 90.91% in 2003, 78.57% in 2004, 73.68% in 2005, 73.91% in 2006 and 65.38% in 2007.  Division Three of the Fourth District has performed the best.  Division One of the Fourth District has not risen above one-half affirmance during these years.  Division Two has only slightly exceeded that figure – 53.85% in 2007.  Division Three reached 57.14% in 2003 and 62.5% in 2005.

The Fifth District has remained above fifty percent affirmance throughout these years too.  Division Five has seen 62.5% affirmance.  In 2003 and 2005, 55.56% of the Court’s decisions have been affirmed.  Two-thirds of the Court’s decisions were affirmed in 2006 and 2007.  The Sixth District has performed well too – fifty percent affirmance in 2002, one hundred percent 2003-2006, and 83.33% in 2007.

Table 97A

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn to the Court’s criminal cases between 20002 and 2007.

Image courtesy of Flickr by WorldAroundTrip (no changes).

14331207029_d3dc2cabfc_z

Yesterday, we continued our examination of the Court’s voting patterns, dividing the Court’s unanimity rate among the automatic death penalty appeals and the criminal non-death cases, and asking how often in the death penalty and “everything else” dockets the Court’s decision was lopsided – meaning either unanimous or one dissenter.  Today, we turn our attention to the years 2008 through 2015.

For 2008, the type of criminal case had little impact on the chance the Court would be unanimous – 88.46% of the death penalty decisions were unanimous, 87.5% of the criminal non-death decisions were.  The following year, unanimity among death penalty appeals was flat at 88%, but it fell among non-death cases to 75%.  In 2010, 91.67% of death penalty decisions were unanimous, to only 75.51% of non-death cases.

In 2011, unanimity fell to its lowest level of the sixteen years on death penalty appeals at 73.08%.  Among non-death cases, 72% were unanimous decisions.  The following year, unanimity was back up to 92% on the death penalty side, but only 71.43% on the non-death side.

But in the most recent three years, the two measures have remained almost even.  In 2013, 83.33% of death penalty decisions were unanimous; 81.25% of non-death decisions were.  In 2014, exactly the same fraction – 83.33% – of death penalty decisions were unanimous, while 84.38% of non-death decisions were.  Last year, unanimity among death penalty cases had fallen to 76.47%, while 74.07% of non-death decisions were unanimous.

Table 94C

We conclude by looking at the lopsided rate.  Between 2008 and 2010, the rate of lopsided decisions in death penalty cases remained at very high levels: 92.31% in 2008, 92% in 2009, and 95.83% in 2010.  During those same years, the rate was similar in non-death cases for 2008 and 2009 – 90% and 91.67%, respectively – but fell to 77.55% in 2010.

In 2011, 88.46% of death penalty decisions were lopsided, to 72% of non-death decisions.  In 2012, all the death penalty decisions were lopsided.  Among non-death cases, 83.67% were.  For 2013, 83.33% of death penalty decisions were lopsided, while non-death was much higher – 93.75%.  Lopsidedness rose on the death penalty side in 2014 to 91.67%, but fell slightly among non-death cases to 87.5%.  Last year, 82.35% of the Court’s death penalty decisions had zero or one dissenter.  On the non-death side, 81.48% were lopsided decisions.

Table 95C

Join us back here next week as we start work on another area of analysis – the Court’s reversal rate, in civil and criminal cases, of each District (and for the First, Second and Fourth Districts, each Division), of the Court of Appeal.

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

93184107_16d758513c_z

For the past few weeks, we’ve been looking further at the Court’s unanimity rate, dividing the Court’s docket into closely divided (2-3 dissenters) and lopsided decisions.  This week, we’ll take a closer look at the Court’s criminal docket, dividing the Court’s decisions into the automatic death penalty appeals and criminal non-death decisions – in other words, everything else.

In Table 92, we report the unanimity rate for death penalty appeals and criminal non-death appeals between 2000 and 2007.  For every year but one, we see that the Court was significantly more likely to reach a unanimous decision in a death penalty appeal than in the Court’s other criminal cases.  In 2000, the difference was exactly fifteen points – 80% unanimity in death penalty appeals, 65% in everything else.  In 2001, 90.91% of death penalty appeals were decided unanimously, but 80.85% of everything else was.  The following year, both numbers fell – 69.23% of death penalty appeals were decided unanimously to 62.5% of non-death appeals.  In 2003, unanimity was up to 84.21% on the death penalty side, while remaining flat on the non-death side – 62.79%.  In 2004, unanimity was up to 90.48% on death penalty appeals, with 72.55% of the rest of the docket unanimous.  The next year, unanimity was almost unchanged on the death docket at 88%, but for the following two years, unanimity in the non-death docket dropped sharply.  In 2005, only 57.14% of the Court’s criminal non-death cases were decided unanimously.  In 2006, 84.21% of the death penalty appeals were decided unanimously, but only 44.12% of the non-death cases were.  But by 2007, everything was back even – 82.61% of death penalty appeals were decided unanimously, and fully 86.84% of criminal non-death cases were unanimous decisions.

Table 92C

In Table 93 below, we report the lopsided rate for the same period (i.e., unanimous + 1 dissenter cases).  We see that for these years, is was routine for nine out of every ten death penalty appeals to be decided unanimously or with only one dissenter.  In 2000, 92.86% of the death penalty appeals were lopsided decided.  In 2001 and 2005, they all were.  In 2002, 92.31% were lopsided.  In 2003, the figure dropped to 89.47%, remaining flat the next year at 90.48%.  In 2006, the lopsided rate dropped to its lowest level of these eight years on the death penalty side, with only 84.21% of the Court’s death penalty appeals resulting in lopsided decisions.

The story was quite different among non-death criminal decisions.  Only 67.5% were lopsided in 2000.  In 2001, the figure rose to 85.11% lopsided decisions.  In 2002, just above three-quarters of the Court’s non-death criminal decisions were lopsided – 76.79%.  The rate increased further in the two years that followed, to 86.05% in 2003 and 92.16% in 2004, but dropped sharply in 2005 and 2006 (as one would expect, given the unanimity numbers above).  In 2005, 62.86% of the Court’s non-death criminal appeals were lopsided decisions.  The next year, 67.65% were.  But in 2007, 97.37% of the Court’s non-death criminal decisions were lopsided – even a slightly higher percentage that on the death penalty side.

Table 93C

Join us back here tomorrow as we turn our attention to the Court’s death penalty decisions for the years 2008 through 2015.

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

2599110051_cced8b6100_z

Yesterday, we addressed trends in the California Supreme Court’s special concurrences in civil cases between 2000 and 2015.  Today, we turn to the Court’s special concurrences in criminal cases for the same years.

Between 2000 and 2007, the Court’s unanimity rate was typically between sixty and seventy percent.  The unanimity rate was up sharply in the eight years that followed.  In 2008, 87.88% of the Court’s criminal decisions were unanimous.  In 2009, 80.33% were unanimous, and the following year, 80.82% were.  In 2011, 72.55% of the Court’s criminal decisions were unanimous.  The following year, 79.22% were unanimous.  In 2013, the unanimity rate was up only slightly; 82% of the Court’s decisions were unanimous.  The following year, the unanimity rate was 83.93%.  In 2015, three-quarters of the Court’s decisions were unanimous.

We turn next to the Court’s lopsided rate – the percentage of the Court’s criminal decisions with zero or one dissenter.  Between 2000 and 2007, the Court decided between three quarters and eighty-five percent of its cases lopsidedly.  In 2008, 90.91% of the Court’s decisions were lopsided.  The following year, 91.8% of the Court’s decisions were lopsided.  The lopsided rate was between eighty and ninety percent for the three years between 2010 and 2012 – 83.56% in 2010, 80.39% in 2011 and 89.61% in 2012.  In 2013, 90% of the Court’s criminal decisions were unanimous.  In 2014, 89.29% were.  In 2015, the lopsided rate dropped somewhat, with 81.82% of the Court’s criminal cases having zero or one dissenter.

Table 91A

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn our attention to the Court’s dissents.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Jeff Turner (no changes).

 

 

16351644690_0e41e79a81_z

Last week, we began analyzing how often the California Supreme Court is closely divided in civil and criminal cases with a look at the years 2000 through 2007.  This week, we’ll address the years 2008 through 2015.

Between 2000 and 2006, the California Supreme Court typically decided between sixty and seventy percent of its cases unanimously.  Beginning in 2008, the unanimity rate rose substantially.  In 2008, 77.5% of the Court’s civil cases were decided unanimously.  In 2009, 84.09% of the civil cases were. In the four years following – 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 – the Court decided between seventy and eighty percent of its cases unanimously every year: 78.57%, 75.76%, 73.08% and 78.13%, respectively.  In 2014, the unanimity rate fell to 69.57%, but the following year, unanimity was sharply up, with 87.5% of the Court’s civil cases being decided unanimously.

The rate of lopsided decisions – civil cases with one dissenter or unanimously – rose from 2008 to 2015 too.  The rate shifted back and forth for several years – 82.5% in 2008 to 93.18% in 2009; to 85.71% in 2010 and 93.94% in 2011; to 88.46% in 2012 and 87.5% in 2013.  In 2014, the lopsided rate reached its lowest level of this second eight years at 78.26% (the lopsided rate was lower than that in five of the eight years before 2000 and 2007).  In 2015, the lopsided rate reached its second highest rate of the sixteen-year period, with only two of the Court’s thirty-two civil cases ending with two or three dissenters.

Table 90

Join us here tomorrow as we review the rate of unanimous and lopsided criminal decisions on the Court between 2008 and 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by Jim G (no changes).

2539115472_2292b0f5a4_z

Yesterday, we began our analysis of how often the California Supreme Court is closely divided with a look at the civil docket between 2000 and 2007.  Today, we turn to the criminal docket for the same years.

For most of the period, the Court’s unanimity rate in criminal cases was anywhere from fifteen to twenty points higher than it was on the civil side. Even in 2000, when the Court decided less than half its civil cases unanimously, 69.09% of the Court’s criminal decisions were unanimous.  The following year, unanimity was up to 82.76%, before returning to the same level, at 63.77% in 2002 and 69.35% the following year.  In 2004, the Court decided 77.78% of its criminal cases unanimously.  Unanimity dropped in the two years that followed, to 70% in 2005 and only 58.49% in 2006, but rose to 85.25% of the Court’s criminal decisions in 2007.

Just as the Court was generally more united in civil cases, the lopsided decision rate tended to be somewhat higher on the criminal side during these years than it was on the civil docket.  Although the numbers were nearly equal in 2000, with 72.73% of the criminal decisions having zero or one dissenter, to 71.43% of civil decisions, 87.93% of the Court’s criminal decisions were lopsided in 2001.  The Court handed down fourteen criminal decisions with two or three dissenters in 2002, but with a slightly heavier caseload, that amounted to only 79.71% lopsided.  The next two years, the lopsided rate increased, first to 87.1% in 2003 and then to 91.67% in 2004.  In 2005 and 2006, the Court decided thirteen and fourteen two or three dissenter criminal cases respectively, for a lopsided rate of 78.33% and 73.08%.  But in 2007, the Court decided only two criminal decisions with two or three dissenters, bringing the lopsided rate to its largest number of the period – 96.72%.

 

Table 89

Join us back here next Thursday as we turn to the unanimity and lopsided rates for the years 2008 through 2015.

Image courtesy of Flickr by StrangeVisitor (no changes).