Judging in Trial Courts: An Exploratory Study

Abstract

T RIAL JUDGES are among the least studied and least well understood of all political actors. Unlike judges on appellate courts, trial judges have received relatively little attention in the past decade's behavioral revolution. This inattention is partially attributable to the judges' low visibility, the difficulty of gathering data on their behavior and the difficulty of determining what about their job and their activities is most worthy of study. Unlike appellate judges, who are frequently involved in the making of policy decisions which are both controversial and important to large contituencies, the actions of trial judges do not appear, at first glance, to have broad political impact. Furthermore, while the most important activity of appellate judges comes in deciding cases and writing opinions, the activities of judges at the trial court level are much more varied and difficult to rank. Sentencing, deciding on the admissibility of evidence, conducting arraignments and pre-trial conferences, these are just a few of the highly consequential tasks which trial judges carry out. Most of what we know about trial judges pertains to three general issues. First, what role do trial judges play in the court considered as an organization?' Most research on the activities of