Louisiana State University LSU Digital Commons LSU Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 2011 Community preferences and trial court decision- making: the influence of political, social, and economic conditions on litigation outcomes Tao Lotus Dumas Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations Part of the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Dumas, Tao Lotus, "Community preferences and trial court decision-making: the influence of political, social, and economic conditions on litigation outcomes" (2011). LSU Doctoral Dissertations. 3421. https://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/gradschool_dissertations/3421 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at LSU Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in LSU Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized graduate school editor of LSU Digital Commons. For more information, please [email protected]. COMMUNITY PREFERENCES AND TRIAL COURT DECISION-MAKING: THE INFLUENCE OF POLITICAL, SOCIAL, AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS ON LITIGATION OUTCOMES A Dissertation Submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Louisiana State University and Agricultural and Mechanical College in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in The Department of Political Science by Tao Lotus Dumas B.A., Lamar University, 2005 M.A. Louisiana State University, 2009 December 2011 ---“[Juries] will introduce into their verdicts a certain amount--a very large amount, so far as I have observed--of popular prejudice, and thus keep the administration of the law in accord with the wishes and the feelings of the community.” Oliver Wendell Holmes (238, 1920) ii Acknowledgements As anyone who has written a dissertation knows, the lonely hours and emotional struggle of completing the project provide as much of a hurdle as the research itself. Fortunately for me, I possess a very supportive family, committee, and circle of friends. I must first thank my domestic partner, Jason Matlosz, who survived this process with me and without whose support this dissertation could not have been completed in its current form. I am also fortunate to have a very helpful committee who encouraged this research from its inception. Thank you Robbie Hogan, Laura Moyer, Bill Clark, and Craig Freeman for your continued enthusiasm. Special thanks go to my dissertation chair, Stacia Haynie, who played an integral role in the development and completion of this project. Thank you also to mother, Adel Dumas, and my sister and brothers, Alexes Dumas, Dale Dumas, and Shilo Dumas for their loyalty and caring. I must also thank my friends Natasha Bingham, Stephenie Werline, James Williams, and Kristin Wylie, and others who helped me through several emotional melt downs along the way. I hope this dissertation makes you all proud. iii Table of Contents ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS………………………………………………………………………iii ABSTRACT……………………………………………………………………………………….v INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………...............1 CHAPTER 1 DEVELOPING AN INTERGRATED MODEL OF TRIAL COURT DECISION- MAKING…………………………………………………………………………..9 2 COMPARING CIVIL COURTS IN FIVE STATES: DOCKET COMPOSITION, WIN/LOSS RATES, AND AWARDS…………………………………………..52 3 “TORT HELL”? ALABAMA CIVIL JURY VERDICTS FROM 2001-2009.……….70 4 MODELING CIVIL JURY VERDICTS IN COMPARATIVE CONTEXT………...107 CONCLUSION……………………………………………………………………....................151 REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………163 APPENDIX A INTERVIEW QUESTIONNAIRES…………………………………………………176 B VARIABLES AND CODING……………………………………………………….181 C INDIANA INSTITUTIONAL MODELS……………………………………………189 D LETTER OF PERMISSION…………………………………………………………191 VITA……………………………………………………………………………………………192 iv Abstract During the ratification debates the Federalists and Anti-federalists contested the merits of the civil jury. The Anti-federalists, preferring strong local government, argued that civil juries empowered communities to settle disputes themselves based on local standards. On the other hand, Federalists maintained that civil juries were outmoded and produced inconsistent applications of the law from one locale to another, jeopardizing the rule of law. Although the ratification debates ultimately ended with the inclusion of the Seventh Amendment guaranteeing the right to a jury trial in all disputes involving claims greater than $20, the disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists closely mirrors the current debate between advocates and opponents of tort reform. These persistent, normative questions regarding the role of civil juries in American society give rise to the empirical questions that my dissertation explores. First, are there differences in the way that civil juries resolve disputes and allocate resources from one community to another, and if there are, what factors explain and predict those differences? Secondly, are there similar differences across states in litigation outcomes? I endeavor to explain differences in civil trial outcomes based on social, political, and economic conditions, within and across states, using an original data set comprised of all 2009 cases decided in the Alabama, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, and Tennessee civil trial courts, including an in-depth analysis of Alabama trial courts using interviews conducted in the state and data collected from 2002-2009. My dissertation also explores the underexplored relationship between judicial selection method and trial court decision-making by comparing outcomes across partisan, nonpartisan, retention, and gubernatorial appointment selection systems. I also analyze the effect of tort reforms seeking to limit non-physical and punitive damage awards on amounts awarded across states. v Introduction During the ratification debates the Federalists and Anti-Federalists contested the desirability of the constitutional protection of civil juries. The Anti-Federalists, preferring strong local government, argued that civil juries empowered communities to settle disputes themselves based on local standards. ―Juries are constantly and frequently drawn from the body of the people, and freemen of the country; and by holding the jury‘s right to return a general verdict in all cases sacred, we secure to the people at large, their rightful control in the judicial department‖ (Federal Farmer XV, Storing1981, 320). On the other hand, the Federalists maintained that civil juries were outmoded and produced inconsistent applications of the law from one jurisdiction to another, jeopardizing the rule of law. Hamilton argued that ―The capricious operation of so dissimilar a method of trial in the same cases, under the same government, is of itself sufficient to indispose every well regulated judgment towards it…The best judges of the matter [civil juries] will be the least anxious for a constitutional establishment of the trial by jury in civil cases, and will be the most ready to admit that the changes which are continually happening in the affairs of society may render a different mode of determining questions of property preferable in many cases in which that mode of trial [civil juries] currently prevails‖ (Federalist 83, Goldman 2008, 416). Although the Framers ultimately included the Seventh Amendment‘s guarantee of the right to a jury trial in all disputes involving claims greater than $20, the disagreement between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists closely mirrors the current debate between advocates and opponents of tort reform. The President of the America Tort Reform Association (ATRA) asserts that "Some astonishing decisions come out of the courts these days. Hundreds of millions in punitive damages piled on top of relatively minor actual damages. Meritless cases settled 1 because defendants fear the outcome of an emotion-filled jury trial or a lawless court. That's why the ATRA leads the fight for a better civil justice system - one that's fair, efficient and predictable‖ (Joyce 2007). On the other hand, the American Association for Justice, a professional trial lawyers‘ association argues that ―Special interests like big tobacco, the insurance industry, HMOs, and drug companies have mounted multi-million dollar campaigns against the civil justice system and Constitutional right to trial by jury. As part of those campaigns, companies and corporate lobbyists hype bogus numbers and questionable studies, make exaggerated and untrue claims about so-called ‗frivolous‘ lawsuits, and fall back on age- old stereotypes about trial lawyers‖ (American Association for Justice 2005). These persistent normative and political tensions regarding the role of civil juries in American society give rise to two empirical questions that this research seeks to explore. First, are there observable differences in the way that civil juries resolve disputes and allocate resources from one community to another? Secondly, if we observe differences across communities, what factors explain and predict those differences? Theoretically, the local community, from which civil litigation typically emerges, might directly affect trial court outcomes by shaping the participants‘ evaluation of the conflict. This research maintains that trial courts are political institutions that are affected by the local political, social, and economic context. Despite numerous normative and political debates surrounding civil jury decision- making, a severe lack of reliable empirical data prevents a meaningful assessment of the claims