skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 63398 Find in a Library
Title: RESOLUTION OF APPELLATE LITIGATION - A CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT
Journal: EVALUATION QUARTERLY  Volume:3  Issue:4  Dated:(NOVEMBER 1979)  Pages:557-582
Author(s): J GOLDMAN
Corporate Author: Sage Publications, Inc
United States of America
Date Published: 1979
Page Count: 26
Sponsoring Agency: Sage Publications, Inc
Thousand Oaks, CA 91320
Type: Report (Study/Research)
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: RESULTS ARE PRESENTED OF A CLASSIC CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT TO DETERMINE THE EFFICACY OF AN INNOVATIVE SET OF APPELLATE PROCEDURES DESIGNED, IN PART, TO ELIMINATE APPELLATE LEGISLATION.
Abstract: THE EXPERIMENT WAS CONDUCTED FROM 1974 TO 1977 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT, AN INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT THAT HEARS AND DECIDES CASES ARISING FROM THE FEDERAL TRIAL COURTS IN NEW YORK, CONNECTICUT, AND VERMONT. THE COURT USES TWO PREAPPEAL PROCEDURES, GENERALLY IN COMBINATION: (1) A CONFERENCE IN WHICH THE ADVERSARIES, AND SOMETIMES THE CLIENTS, MEET WITH A COURT-EMPLOYED ATTORNEY, AND (2) AN ORDER ISSUED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS THAT ESTABLISHES DEADLINES FOR CRITICAL EVENTS. ONLY CIVIL CASES DEEMED ELIGIBLE BY THE STAFF ATTORNEY FOR BOTH PROCEDURES WERE INCLUDED IN THE EXPERIMENT. A TOTAL OF 225 CASES WERE THEN RANDOMLY ASSIGNED TO AN EXPERIMENTAL GROUP IN WHICH BOTH PROCEDURES WERE APPLIED, AND 77 CASES TO A CONTROL GROUP IN WHICH BOTH PROCEDURES WERE WITHHELD. EVIDENCE WAS COLLECTED TO TEST WHETHER THE PROCEDURES WOULD REDUCE THE PROPORTION OF APPEALS THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BURDEN THE JUDGES, IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF APPEALS, OR IMPROVE THEIR EFFICIENCY. DATA UNIFORMLY AND CONSISTENTLY SUPPORTED THE JUDGMENT THAT INFORMAL DISPUTE RESOLUTION OF CIVIL APPELLATE LITIGATION FAILED. HOWEVER, THE FOLLOWING CAVEATS LIMIT THE GENERALITY OF THESE FINDINGS: (1) ONLY ONE ATTORNEY SUPERVISED THE NEW PROCEDURES (THAT PERSON MAY HAVE BEEN UNSKILLED), (2) THE PROCEDURES WERE SUPERVISED BY AN ATTORNEY RATHER THAN A JUDGE (ATTORNEYS MAY NOT HAVE THE STATUS TO ACHIEVE COMPROMISE AMONG ADVOCATES), AND (3) ATTORNEYS MET TO DISCUSS SETTLEMENT POSSIBILITIES WITH THEIR ADVERSARIES (AN EXPERIENCE UNIQUE TO NEW YORK ATTORNEYS THAT MAY LIMIT FURTHER DISCUSSIONS). FURTHER RESEARCH SHOULD BE CONDUCTED TO DETERMINE THE UTILITY OF THESE PROCEDURES IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES. NOTES ARE PROVIDED. (AOP)
Index Term(s): Caseloads; Court case flow management; Court delays; Court reform; Evaluation; Evaluative research; Research design
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=63398

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.