Justices' Responses To Case Facts

Abstract

In this study we evaluate the generalizability of the attitudinal model as explicated in the United States Supreme Court by assessing the extent to which state supreme court justices' responses to case facts are conditioned not only by their ideological preferences but also by the political environments within which the cases are heard. Using probit analysis, we examine the votes of supreme court justices in eight states (Arizona, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Carolina, Ohio, and Texas) from 1983 through 1988 in the death penalty decisions issued by these courts. We find that justices do not respond uniformly to certain case facts when deciding between sentences of life or death for defendants convicted of capital crimes. Instead, justices' responses to case facts vary according to their individual partisan preferences and the ideological climates within which they operate. In other words, contextual forces are important direct and indirect influences on judicial behavior, and the attitudinal model must be modified for application to other courts. To formulate a singular theory of judicial choice necessitates an appreciation for the importance of courts' external operating environments as significant influences on judicial choice. Through comparative research designs and models that include microlevel and macro-level forces (including political context), scholars will be able to build models that transcend particular judicial institutions and that better represent the complexity of the judicial calculus.