We assess the influence professional background – specifically, having been a prosecutor or a public defender – exerts on decision making by federal district court judges. Focusing on search and seizure cases, we analyze nearly 1500 motions to suppress evidence from 2000 to 2022. In addition to controlling for judicial ideology and a judge’s prior experience as a prosecutor or public defender, we utilize matching to address endogeneity concerns related to one’s ability to self-select into one of these positions—which may itself be influenced by that individual’s ideological predispositions. We find that having been a former prosecutor, as well as the length of time that service spans, makes a judge significantly more likely to rule against a motion to suppress. Former public defenders are significantly more likely to grant that suppression motion, though their propensity to do so is not affected by the length of time served in that capacity.
AshenfelterO.EisenbergT.SchwabS. J. (1995). Politics and the judiciary: The influence of judicial background on case outcomes. Journal of Legal Studies, 24(2), 257–281.
3.
BaumL. (2011). Specializing the courts. The University of Chicago Press.
4.
BerryessaC. M.DrorI. E.McCormackB. (2023). Prosecuting from the bench? Examining sources of pro-prosecution bias in judges. Legal and criminological psychology, 28(1), 1–14.. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12226.
5.
BoydC. L. (2016). Representation on the courts? The effects of trial judges’ sex and race. Political Research Quarterly, 69(4), 788–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912916663653
ClaytonC. W. (1994). Law, politics, and the new federalism: State attorneys general as national Policymakers. The Review of Politics, 56(3), 525–553. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0034670500018945
GeorgeT. E.WeaverT. G. (2017). The role of personal attributes and social backgrounds on judging. In EpsteinL.LindquistS. A. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of U.S. judicial behavior (pp. 286–302). Oxford University Press.
10.
GilesM.W.HettingerV.A.PeppersT. (2001). Picking federal judges: A note on policy and partisan selection agendas. Political Research Quarterly, 54(3), 623–641. https://doi.org/10.1177/106591290105400307.
11.
GoldmanS. (1974). Judicial backgrounds, recruitment, and the party variable: The case of the Johnson and Nixon appointees to the United States district and appeals courts. Arizona State Law Journal, 1974(2), 211–222.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2009). cem: Software for coarsened exact matching. Journal of Statistical Software, 30(9), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v030.i09
14.
JohnstonR. E. (1976). Supreme court voting behavior: A comparison of the warren and burger courts. In PeabodyR. L. (Ed.), Cases in American politics (pp. 71–110). Praeger.
15.
KaganR. A. (1996). American lawyers, legal culture, and adversarial legalism. In FriedmanL. M.ScheiberH. N. (Eds.), Legal culture and the legal profession (pp. 7–51). Westview Press.
KimP. T.SchlangerM.BoydC. L.MartinA. D. (2009). How should we study district court judge decision-making?Washington University Journal of Law and Policy, 29(1), 83–112.
18.
KuntslerW. M. (1986). Too many prosecutors become judges. New York Times.
19.
MillerB.CurryB. (2022). To stay or not to stay: Patent litigation in the federal district courts. Journal of Law and Courts, 10(1), 167–188. https://doi.org/10.1086/715157
20.
MillerM. C. (2021). The Senate judiciary committee’s relationship with the federal courts. British Journal of American Legal Studies, 10(3), 409–432. https://doi.org/10.2478/bjals-2021-0012
21.
NagelS. S. (1962). Judicial backgrounds and criminal cases. The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 53(3), 333–339. https://doi.org/10.2307/1141469
RobinsonR. (2011). Does prosecutorial experience ‘balance out’ a judge’s liberal tendencies?Justice System Journal, 32(2), 143–168.
26.
SchererN. (2005). Scoring points: Politicians, activists, and the lower federal court appointment process. Stanford University Press.
27.
SegalJ. A. (1984). Predicting Supreme Court cases probabilistically: The search and seizure cases, 1962-1981. American Political Science Review, 78(4), 891–900. https://doi.org/10.2307/1955796
StuartE. A. (2010). Matching methods for causal inference: A review and a look forward. Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 25(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-STS313
30.
TateC. N. (1981). Personal attribute models of the voting behavior of U.S. Supreme court justices: Liberalism in civil liberties and economics decisions, 1946–1978. American Political Science Review, 75(2), 355–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961370
31.
TateC. N.HandbergR. (1991). Time binding and theory building in personal attribute models of supreme court voting behavior, 1916-88. American Journal of Political Science, 35(2), 460–480. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111371
32.
UlmerS. S. (1975). Social background as an indicator of the votes of supreme court justices in criminal cases: 1947-1956 terms. American Journal of Political Science, 17(3), 622–630.
33.
WoolridgeJ. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
