Details
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 223-249 |
| Number of pages | 27 |
| Journal | Journal of empirical legal studies |
| Volume | 19 |
| Issue number | 1 |
| Early online date | 3 Feb 2022 |
| Publication status | Published - 27 Feb 2022 |
Abstract
Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision-making. However, we still lack empirical evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision-making. In this article, I argue familiarity, an antecedent to collegiality, improves judicial deliberations by encouraging minority dissent and a more extensive debate of different legal viewpoints. Relying on a novel dataset of 21,613 appeals in criminal cases at the German Federal Court of Justice between 1990 and 2016, I exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to decision-making groups to show that judges' pairwise familiarity substantially increases the probability that judges schedule a main hearing after first-stage deliberations. Group familiarity also increases the length of the justification of the ruling. The findings have implications for the way courts organize the assignment of judges to panels.
Keywords
- collegiality, deliberation, familiarity, judicial decision-making, minority dissent
ASJC Scopus subject areas
Sustainable Development Goals
Cite this
- Standard
- Harvard
- Apa
- Vancouver
- BibTeX
- RIS
In: Journal of empirical legal studies, Vol. 19, No. 1, 27.02.2022, p. 223-249.
Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Research › peer review
}
TY - JOUR
T1 - Does Group Familiarity Improve Deliberations in Judicial Teams?
T2 - Evidence from the German Federal Court of Justice
AU - Swalve, Tilko
PY - 2022/2/27
Y1 - 2022/2/27
N2 - Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision-making. However, we still lack empirical evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision-making. In this article, I argue familiarity, an antecedent to collegiality, improves judicial deliberations by encouraging minority dissent and a more extensive debate of different legal viewpoints. Relying on a novel dataset of 21,613 appeals in criminal cases at the German Federal Court of Justice between 1990 and 2016, I exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to decision-making groups to show that judges' pairwise familiarity substantially increases the probability that judges schedule a main hearing after first-stage deliberations. Group familiarity also increases the length of the justification of the ruling. The findings have implications for the way courts organize the assignment of judges to panels.
AB - Collegiality plays a central role in judicial decision-making. However, we still lack empirical evidence about the effects of collegiality on judicial decision-making. In this article, I argue familiarity, an antecedent to collegiality, improves judicial deliberations by encouraging minority dissent and a more extensive debate of different legal viewpoints. Relying on a novel dataset of 21,613 appeals in criminal cases at the German Federal Court of Justice between 1990 and 2016, I exploit quasi-random assignment of cases to decision-making groups to show that judges' pairwise familiarity substantially increases the probability that judges schedule a main hearing after first-stage deliberations. Group familiarity also increases the length of the justification of the ruling. The findings have implications for the way courts organize the assignment of judges to panels.
KW - collegiality
KW - deliberation
KW - familiarity
KW - judicial decision-making
KW - minority dissent
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85126262414&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/jels.12308
DO - 10.1111/jels.12308
M3 - Article
VL - 19
SP - 223
EP - 249
JO - Journal of empirical legal studies
JF - Journal of empirical legal studies
SN - 1740-1453
IS - 1
ER -