Court Common Pleas Judge Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Darcel D. Clark Total Domestic Relations John A. Lahtinen Leslie E. Stein William E. McCarthy Edward O. Spain Total Municipal Elizabeth A. Garry John C. Egan Jr. Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Disposed 2910 2460 1432 1999 3232 2531 3125 3273 3100 2806 3210 3380 3302 1039 3097 3049 Appealed 124 107 41 63 141 93 125 135 121 127 133 98 150 89 125 90 Reversed 10 9 4 8 9 19 25 21 10 11 10 13 19 11 12 8 2936 5735 8998 12830 10 11 55 30 3 9 4 1 6316 7920 8235 9780 3201 7103 4201 7235 2203 2789 4138 8139 7468 2680 4627 1236 7898 51 53 36 32 27 6 6 12 35 65 21 50 22 24 10 3 9 6 7 8 9 2 5 4 1 2 3 6 9 5 8 5 3 6 P(Appeal) Darcel D. Clark Luis A. Gonzalez Leslie E. Stein Total 5135 5378 2782 11 21 6 2 7 6 Rank by P(A) P(Reversal) Rank by P(R) P(R|A) Rank by P(R|A) Sum of Ranks Overall Rank The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of the Judges of Jackson County and providing a rank basis of their performance. The basis to evaluate the performance of the Judges is the number of cases of disposed, the number of cases appealed and the number of cases reversed. Also an another object is to know the performance or the standard of verdict of each type of court. Data variable for this study: So the variables used to measure the performance of the Judges are the number of cases disposed by each Judge, the number of cases appealed among the disposed cases by each of the Judge, and from the appealed cases the number of cases reversed. Here, we considered the data set of cases handled by Jackson County judges over a three-year period to study and evaluate the performances of each Judge and of each court. The total number of cases that the Jackson County judges disposes are about 182,908. The Formula and Procedure: In this context, use the probability theory to find out the chances of the cases appealed , chances of the cases reversed and conditional chances of reverse given no of appeals. As the data set is huge and it is considered over a period of three years, probability theory quiet appropriate to study the efficiency of the decisions made by each Judge. Here the Probability of appeal of a Judge is calculated as the ratio of the number of cases disposed by a particular judge to the number of cases appealed among his disposed cases. Similarly the Probability of Reversed cases for a judge = The number of cases reversed by that judge/Number of cases disposed by him. And the Probability of Reversed given appealed from a judge verdict is = The number of cases reversed of a judge / the number of cases appealed from his/her disposed To evaluate the performance of each court, applied same probability theory and evaluate the probability of cases being appealed in each of the court, probability of cases being reversed in each of the court and the conditional probability of cases being reversed given the number of cases appealed in each of the court. The probability of cases being appealed in each of the court is calculated using the formula = The number of cases being appealed / The total number of cases disposed Similarly the Probability of cases being reversed in each of the court = The number of cases being reversed/ The total number of cases disposed And the Probability of cases being reversed given the number of cases appealed in each of the court = The number of cases being reversed / The number of cases being appealed. After obtaining the probabilities of each of the Judge rank them in the order of the merit. Here the order of merit is evaluated in ascending order. This means a Judge will be considered the best if the probability of cases being appealed from his verdict is least. The Judge with least probability will be assigned to first Rank. Similarly the second least probability person will be awarded the second rank. After obtaining the ranks for each of the three cases (probabilities) mentioned above find the sum of these ranks and assign a final rank to each of the Judge. The Probabilities and the Rankings of each Judge is calculated in the excel. Also the Probabilities of each of the court is calculated in the excel and the results furnished below. Results: 1. The probability of cases being appealed in each of the three different courts. The Probabilities furnished in the below table Court Common Pleas Domestic Relations Municipal P(Appeal) 0.04010 0.00348 0.00461 The probabilities of being appealed is least in the Domestic Relations. 2. The probability of cases being reversed in each of the three different courts. The Probabilities furnished in the below table Court Common Pleas Domestic Relations Municipal P(Reversal) 0.00453 0.00056 0.00096 The probabilities of being Reversed is least in the Domestic Relations. 3. The probability of cases being reversed given an appeal in each of the three different courts. The Probabilities furnished in the below table Court Common Pleas Domestic Relations Municipal P(R|A) 0.11294 0.16038 0.20800 The probabilities of being Reversed given appeal is least in the Common Pleas court. 4. The probability of a case being appealed for each judge. Judge Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Darcel D. Clark P(Appeal) 0.04261 0.04350 0.02863 0.03152 0.04363 0.03674 0.04000 0.04125 0.03903 0.04526 0.04143 0.02899 0.04543 0.08566 0.04036 0.02952 The probability of being appealed is least for Richard T.Andrias. 5. The probability of a case being reversed for each judge. Judge Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Darcel D. Clark P(Reversal) 0.00344 0.00366 0.00279 0.00400 0.00278 0.00751 0.00800 0.00642 0.00323 0.00392 0.00312 0.00385 0.00575 0.01059 0.00387 0.00262 The probability of being reversed is least for Darcel D. Clark. 6. The probability of reversal, given an appeal for each judge. Judge Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman P(R|A) 0.08065 0.08411 0.09756 0.12698 0.06383 0.20430 0.20000 0.15556 0.08264 0.08661 0.07519 Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Darcel D. Clark 0.13265 0.12667 0.12360 0.09600 0.08889 The probability of being reversed given appealed is least for John W. Sweeny Jr.. 7. Rank the judges within each court for each of the probabilities in 4 -6. The ranking of the Judges in each of the court is given in the below table. The chart of the Overall Performance of each of the Judge in the court Common Pleas is 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Overall Rank The overall performance of Darcel D.Clark is the best among all other judges in the Common Pleas court. He has the least % number of reversal of his total disposed, stood third from the least in terms of % of the number of appeals and stood 7 th position from the least in % of cases reversed against the appeal. The chart of the Overall Performance of each of the Judge in the court Domestic Relations is 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Overall Rank The overall performance of Edward O. Spain is the best among all other judges in the Domestic Relations court. He has the least % number of reversals of his total disposed, stood second from the least in terms of % of the number of appeals and stood first position from the least in % of cases reversed against the appeal. The chart of the Overall Performance of each of the Judge in the court of Muncipal is 25 20 15 10 5 Overall Rank 0 The overall performance of Rolando T. Acosta is the best among all other judges in the Muncipl court. He has the least % number of reversals of his total disposed, stood 4th from the least in terms of % of the number of appeals and again stood fourth position from the least in % of cases reversed against the appeal. The objective of this study is to evaluate the performance of the Judges of Jackson County and providing a rank basis of their performance. The basis to evaluate the performance of the Judges is the number of cases of disposed, the number of cases appealed and the number of cases reversed. Also an another object is to know the performance or the standard of verdict of each type of court. Data variable for this study: So the variables used to measure the performance of the Judges are the number of cases disposed by each Judge, the number of cases appealed among the disposed cases by each of the Judge, and from the appealed cases the number of cases reversed. Here, we considered the data set of cases handled by Jackson County judges over a three-year period to study and evaluate the performances of each Judge and of each court. The total number of cases that the Jackson County judges disposes are about 182,908. The Formula and Procedure: In this context, use the probability theory to find out the chances of the cases appealed , chances of the cases reversed and conditional chances of reverse given no of appeals. As the data set is huge and it is considered over a period of three years, probability theory quiet appropriate to study the efficiency of the decisions made by each Judge. Here the Probability of appeal of a Judge is calculated as the ratio of the number of cases disposed by a particular judge to the number of cases appealed among his disposed cases. Similarly the Probability of Reversed cases for a judge = The number of cases reversed by that judge/Number of cases disposed by him. And the Probability of Reversed given appealed from a judge verdict is = The number of cases reversed of a judge / the number of cases appealed from his/her disposed To evaluate the performance of each court, applied same probability theory and evaluate the probability of cases being appealed in each of the court, probability of cases being reversed in each of the court and the conditional probability of cases being reversed given the number of cases appealed in each of the court. The probability of cases being appealed in each of the court is calculated using the formula = The number of cases being appealed / The total number of cases disposed Similarly the Probability of cases being reversed in each of the court = The number of cases being reversed/ The total number of cases disposed And the Probability of cases being reversed given the number of cases appealed in each of the court = The number of cases being reversed / The number of cases being appealed. After obtaining the probabilities of each of the Judge rank them in the order of the merit. Here the order of merit is evaluated in ascending order. This means a Judge will be considered the best if the probability of cases being appealed from his verdict is least. The Judge with least probability will be assigned to first Rank. Similarly the second least probability person will be awarded the second rank. After obtaining the ranks for each of the three cases (probabilities) mentioned above find the sum of these ranks and assign a final rank to each of the Judge. The Probabilities and the Rankings of each Judge is calculated in the excel. Also the Probabilities of each of the court is calculated in the excel and the results furnished below. Results: 1. The probability of cases being appealed in each of the three different courts. The Probabilities furnished in the below table Court Common Pleas Domestic Relations Municipal P(Appeal) 0.04010 0.00348 0.00461 The probabilities of being appealed is least in the Domestic Relations. 2. The probability of cases being reversed in each of the three different courts. The Probabilities furnished in the below table Court Common Pleas Domestic Relations Municipal P(Reversal) 0.00453 0.00056 0.00096 The probabilities of being Reversed is least in the Domestic Relations. 3. The probability of cases being reversed given an appeal in each of the three different courts. The Probabilities furnished in the below table Court Common Pleas Domestic Relations Municipal P(R|A) 0.11294 0.16038 0.20800 The probabilities of being Reversed given appeal is least in the Common Pleas court. 4. The probability of a case being appealed for each judge. Judge Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Darcel D. Clark P(Appeal) 0.04261 0.04350 0.02863 0.03152 0.04363 0.03674 0.04000 0.04125 0.03903 0.04526 0.04143 0.02899 0.04543 0.08566 0.04036 0.02952 The probability of being appealed is least for Richard T.Andrias. 5. The probability of a case being reversed for each judge. Judge Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Darcel D. Clark P(Reversal) 0.00344 0.00366 0.00279 0.00400 0.00278 0.00751 0.00800 0.00642 0.00323 0.00392 0.00312 0.00385 0.00575 0.01059 0.00387 0.00262 The probability of being reversed is least for Darcel D. Clark. 6. The probability of reversal, given an appeal for each judge. Judge Peter Tom Angela M. Mazzarelli Richard T. Andrias David Friedman John W. Sweeny Jr. Rolando T. Acosta David B. Saxe Karla Moskowitz Dianne T. Renwick Leland G. DeGrasse Helen E. Freedman P(R|A) 0.08065 0.08411 0.09756 0.12698 0.06383 0.20430 0.20000 0.15556 0.08264 0.08661 0.07519 Rosalyn H. Richter Sallie Manzanet-Daniels Paul G. Feinman Judith J. Gische Darcel D. Clark 0.13265 0.12667 0.12360 0.09600 0.08889 The probability of being reversed given appealed is least for John W. Sweeny Jr.. 7. Rank the judges within each court for each of the probabilities in 4 -6. The ranking of the Judges in each of the court is given in the below table. The chart of the Overall Performance of each of the Judge in the court Common Pleas is 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Overall Rank The overall performance of Darcel D.Clark is the best among all other judges in the Common Pleas court. He has the least % number of reversal of his total disposed, stood third from the least in terms of % of the number of appeals and stood 7 th position from the least in % of cases reversed against the appeal. The chart of the Overall Performance of each of the Judge in the court Domestic Relations is 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Overall Rank The overall performance of Edward O. Spain is the best among all other judges in the Domestic Relations court. He has the least % number of reversals of his total disposed, stood second from the least in terms of % of the number of appeals and stood first position from the least in % of cases reversed against the appeal. The chart of the Overall Performance of each of the Judge in the court of Muncipal is 25 20 15 10 5 Overall Rank 0 The overall performance of Rolando T. Acosta is the best among all other judges in the Muncipl court. He has the least % number of reversals of his total disposed, stood 4th from the least in terms of % of the number of appeals and again stood fourth position from the least in % of cases reversed against the appeal