Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument

Lee Epstein, William Landes (w-landes@uchicago.edu) and Richard Posner

The Journal of Legal Studies, 2010, vol. 39, issue 2, 433 - 467

Abstract: It is no longer a secret that a lawyer arguing a case before the Supreme Court is more likely to lose if he is asked more questions than his opponent during oral arguments. This paper rigorously tests that hypothesis and the related hypothesis that a lawyer is more likely to lose if he is asked longer questions (measured by words per question) than his opponent. Using regression analysis, we find strong evidence for both hypotheses: the number of questions asked and the number of words per question asked are both negatively correlated with a party's likelihood of winning. Although the paper is primarily empirical, we also explore the theoretical basis for these results. We analyze the role of deliberation in appellate courts and explain that because formal deliberation is often quite limited, judges use oral argument as an alternative way to express their opinions and attempt to influence other judges.

Date: 2010
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (3)

Downloads: (external link)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/651511 (application/pdf)
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/651511 (text/html)
Access to the online full text or PDF requires a subscription.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:ucp:jlstud:doi:10.1086/651511

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in The Journal of Legal Studies from University of Chicago Press
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Journals Division (pubtech@press.uchicago.edu).