Undergraduate Law and Policy Research Lab

Does the United States Supreme Court rely on social science authority when deciding constitutional issues in criminal cases?

James Acker's 1990 study of social science in Supreme Court criminal cases provided a baseline for its use. This project intends to replicate his work — to thirty years later — to assess whether the Court has more often relied on social science as it has gained greater recognition and acceptance, works by empirical legal scholars have grown, and technology has made social science findings more accessible.

Random selection of criminal cases from 1988-2018

James Acker examined the Supreme Court's use over thirty years in five-year increments. He examined the justices who relied on and cited the social science, and he explored whether the social science was cited in lower court decisions and/or in appellate briefs. Using Westlaw and a narrowed search by content type, cases, and the timeline function, we identified a list of criminal cases decided and published by the Supreme Court. To replicate Acker's study, we will systematically identify and collect information on 40 cases from each of the five time periods: 1988-1993, 1993-1998, 1998-2003, 2003-2008, 2008-2013, and 2013-2018.

Random selection of criminal cases from 1988-2018

Based on earlier studies, including Acker, we hypothesize:

1. There will be an increased use of social science and empirical study over time.
2. The increase will be most prevalent in dissenting opinions.
3. The use of and citation to social science will most often occur in constitutional and deeply-dived issues.

Few defendants appeal from their convictions. In fact, prosecutors are as likely to appeal as defendants. What are the outcomes of their appeals? What factors influence outcomes.

The present research builds on and extends preliminary research conducted in a single Florida county during a single year (n=59), which found that few misdemeanor defendants appealed, the few who appealed were not advised of their right to appeal by judges, and unsurprisingly, the defendants, who appealed, were largely represented by attorneys at trial and on appeal.  Important differences emerged between cases appealed by prosecutors (they were more likely to win) and defendants, and with the experience levels of the prosecutors and defenders at trial and on appeal (Smith, 2019).

Current Project

Using unique datasets of records and transcripts from a ten-year period and an estimated 600 cases appealed from the lower courts in a single metropolitan county in Florida, the present study examines whether the preliminary study patterns hold and investigates:

1. whether representation,
2. the seriousness of the criminal convictions, and
3. the issues raised on appeal

influence appellate outcomes.  The present study will also explore the influence of these independent variables on appellate outcomes, while controlling for race and gender of the courtroom workgroup members, defendants' race and gender, who appealed (prosecutor or defendant), the number of prosecutor and defender practice years, the issues raised on appeal, and the defendants' sentence.

To provide context for the quantitative findings, the trial transcripts will be qualitatively examined to identify, code, and report patterns and themes on differentiated case processing and judicial determinations.

1. What motivates women to enter and continue in criminal defense?
2. How do women define their professional roles and identities?
3. What strategies are used by women to navigate and negotiate the complexities and obstacles of their everyday lives?

The American Bar Association recently released two reports from a study that identified the obstacles and challenges faced by female lawyers (prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, and judges) in navigating the profession: (1) inflexible work schedules, (2) insufficient wellness resources, (3) inadequate opportunities for professional development, and (4) a lack of meaningful mentoring (Ahranjani, 2020, 2021). This qualitative research project is intended to explore the motivations of female criminal defense lawyers to enter that field, how they define their roles, and what strategies they employ to navigate the unique challenges of criminal defense.

Are female lawyers and judges interrupted more often than male lawyers and judges in the lower court, appellate proceedings, and trial court settings?

In 2017, Professors Jacobi and Schweers released a study that examined the effect of gender, ideology, and seniority on interruptions during Supreme Court oral arguments. Using these findings as our starting point, this project examines the content and, through the lens of critical discourse theory, the same patterns of interrupting behavior at arguments and advocacy in lower court proceedings.

1. How are court decisions framed by various media outlets?
2. Who are the dominant contributors (voices) in how court decisions are framed by media outlets and accounts?
3. How are criminal defendants and victims framed by media coverage and accounts?

Framing strategies and critical discourse examinations of court decisions have predominantly focused on Supreme Court cases (e.g., Clawson, Strine, & Waltenburg, 2003; Mathias, 2016) or high-profile cases (e.g., Matthews, 2021). The projects in this area will employ qualitative research methodologies to investigate the framing strategies of the media, critical discourse, or thematic and narrative analysis to examine how varying media present court decisions and criminal defendants to the general public.

Clawson, R.A., Strine, H.C., & Waltenburg, E.N. (2003). Framing Supreme Court decisions: The mainstream versus black press. Journal of Black Studies, 33(6)., 784-800.

Matthews, L. (2021). How are defendants of high-profile court cases framed in the media? A qualitative analysis of news media coverage of Caroline Flack’s arrest. the Plymouth Student Scientist, 14(2), 548-570. (undergraduate student publication from another university).

Matthias, L. (2016). Judicial tyranny or American justice? How partisan news’ coverage of polarizing Supreme Court decisions differs in framing the nation’s highest court. ScienceOpen Research 2016. DOI: 10.14293/S2199-1006.1.SOR-SOCSCI.AYUSLA.v1

1. How do judges/justices and advocates navigate the practical uncertainties of a complex legal case?
2. How do discourse, framing strategies, and metaphors influence case outcomes.

Drawing on thematic analysis, this project explores recent Supreme Court or State Supreme Court decisions and the use of legal discourse, framing strategies, and metaphors by advocates and Justices or Judges at oral argument and legal briefs and court decisions. These projects can take on various forms and perspectives, depending on students’ interests.