Hamilton County Judges Case

CASE PROBLEM: HAMILTON COUNTY JUDGES Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases per year. In an overwhelming majority of the cases disposed, the verdict stands as rendered. However, some cases are appealed, and of those appealed, some of the cases are reversed. Kristen DelGuzzi of the Cincinnati Enquirer conducted a study of cases handled by Hamilton County Judges over a three-year period ( Cincinnati Enquirer, January 11, 1998 ). Shown in Table 2. 5 are the results for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 Judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic relations Court, and Municipal Court.

Two of the judges (Dinkelacker and Hogan) did not serve in the same court for the entire three-year period. The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often the result of mistakes made by judges, and the newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes. You have been called in to assist in the data analysis. Use your knowledge of probability to help with the ranking of the judges. You also may e able to analyze….. TABLE 2.

5 CASES DISPOSED, APPEALED, AND REVERSED IN HAMILTON COUNTY COURTS Common Pleas Court Judge Fred Cartolano Thomas Crush Patrick Dinkelacker Timothy Hogan Robert Kraft William Mathews William Morrissey Norbert Nadel Arthur Ney, Jr. Richard Niehaus Thomas Nurre John O’ Connor Robert Ruehlman J. Howard Sundermann Ann Marie Tracey Ralph Winkler Total Total Cases Disposed 3,037 3,372 1,258 1,954 3,138 2,264 3,032 2,959 3,219 3,353 3,000 2,969 3,205 955 3,141 3,089 43,945 Appealed Cases 137 119 44 60 127 91 121 131 125 137 121 129 145 60 127 88 1,762 Reversed Cases 12 10 8 7 7 18 22 20 14 16 6 12 18 10 13 6 199.

2|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES Domestic Relations Court Judge Penelope Cunningham Patrick Dinkelacker Deborah Gaines Ronald Panioto Total Total Cases Disposed 2,729 6,001 8,799 12,970 30,499 Municipal Court Judge Mike Allen Nadine Allen Timothy Black David Davis Leslie Isaiah Gaines Karla Grady Deidra Hair Dennis Helmick Timothy Hogan James Patrick Kenney Joseph Luebberes William Mallory Melba Marsh Beth Mattingly Albert Mestermaker Mark Painter Jack Rosen Mark Schweikert David Stockdale John A.

West Total Managerial Report Prepare a report with your rankings of the judges. Also, include an analysis of the likelihood of appeal and case reversal in the three courts. At a minimum, your report should include the following: Total Cases Disposed 6,149 7,812 7,954 7,736 5,282 5,253 2,532 7,900 2,308 2,798 4,698 8,277 8,219 2,971 4,975 2,239 7,790 5,403 5,371 2,797 108,464 Appealed Cases 43 34 41 43 35 6 5 29 13 6 25 38 34 13 28 7 41 33 22 4 500 Reversed Cases 4 6 6 5 13 0 0 5 2 1 8 9 7 1 9 3 13 6 4 2 104 Appealed Cases 7 19 48 32 106 Reversed Cases 1 4 9 3 17 3|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts.

The probability of a case being appealed for each judge. The probability of a case being reversed for each judge. The probability of reversal given an appeal for each judge. Rank the judges within each court. State the criteria you used and provide a rationale for your choice. 4|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES OVERVIEW Hamilton County Judges try thousands of cases each year within the three major court systems of Common Pleas, Domestic Relations, and Municipal Court. This is an in depth look at the total cases disposed, appealed, and reversed over a three year measurement period.

The purpose of this is to determine the effectiveness of the 38 judges as a whole and on an individual level with a sample case size is 182,908 total cases over the three year measurement period. The overall data should assist in determining which judges and courts have a greater efficiency than others. Efficiency in this paper is determined by how many cases are appealed, reversed, or a combination of the two stated variables used in combination to help determine the amount of potential errors that the sample judges have made. 1.

Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judge case study the actual probability of cases being appealed or appealed and reversed are as follows. a. Common Pleas Court disposed 43, 945 total cases and had the following probability of either being appealed or appealed and reversed. i. Total cases appealed were 1,762 or 4. 01% ii. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 11. 29% b. Domestic Relations Court disposed 30,499 total cases and had the following probability of either being appealed or appealed and reversed.

iii. Total cases appealed were 106 or . 35% iv. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 16. 04% c. Municipal Court disposed 108,464 total cases and had the following probability of either being appealed or appealed and reversed. v. Total cases appealed were 500 or . 46% vi. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 20. 80% d. All Courts combined disposed 182,908 total cases and had the following probabilityof either being appealed or appealed and reversed. vii.

Total cases appealed were 2368 or 1. 29% viii. Total cases that were appealed that resulted in a reversal was 13. 51% 5|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES 2. Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judge case study the actual probability of cases by judge being appealed are as follows. COMMON PLEAS COURT: JUDGE Fred Cartolano Thomas Crush Patrick Dinkelacker Timothy Hogan Robert Kraft William Mathews William Morrissey Norbert Nadel Arthur Ney, Jr. Richard Niehaus Thomas Nurre John O’ Connor Robert Ruehlman J.

Howard Sundermann Ann Marie Tracey Ralph Winkler ( 137/3037 ) ( 119/3372 ) ( 44+19/1258+6001 ) ( 60+13/1954 +2308) ( 127/3138 ) ( 91/2264 ) ( 121/3032 ) ( 131/2959 ) ( 125/3219 ) ( 137/3353 ) ( 121/3000 ) ( 129/2969 ) ( 145/3205 ) ( 60/955 ) ( 127/3141 ) (88/3089) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Appeal by Judge (P) 0. 04511 0. 03529 0. 034976 0. 03706 0. 04047 0. 04019 0. 03991 0. 04427 0. 03883 0. 04086 0. 04033 0. 04345 0. 04524 0. 06283 0. 04043 . 028488 Appeal by Judge (%) 4. 51% 3. 53% 3. 50% 3. 07% 4. 05% 4. 02% 3. 99% 4. 43% 3. 88% 4. 09% 4. 03% 4. 34% 4. 52% 6. 28% 4. 04% 2. 85%.

DOMESTIC RELATION: JUDGE Penelope Cunningham Patrick Dinkelacker ( 7/2729 ) = ( 44+19/1258+6001 ) = ( 48/8799 ) ( 32/12970 ) = = Appeal by Judge (P) 0. 00257 Appeal by Judge (%) 0. 26% 0. 005455 0. 00546 0. 00247 0. 55% 0. 55% 0. 25% Deborah Gaines Ronald Panioto 6|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES MUNICIPAL COURT: JUDGE Mike Allen Nadine Allen Timothy Black David Davis Leslie Isaiah Gaines Karla Grady Deidra Hair Dennis Helmick Timothy Hogan James Patrick Kenney Joseph Luebberes William Mallory Melba Marsh Beth Mattingly Albert Mestermaker Mark Painter Jack Rosen Mark Schweikert David Stockdale John A.

West ( 43/6149 ) ( 34/7812 ) ( 41/7954 ) ( 43/7736 ) ( 35/5282 ) ( 6/5253 ) ( 5/2532 ) ( 29/7900 ) ( 60+13/1954 +2308) ( 6/2798 ) ( 25/4698 ) ( 38/8277 ) ( 34/8219 ) ( 13/2971 ) ( 28/4975 ) ( 7/2239 ) ( 41/7790 ) ( 33/5403 ) ( 22/5371 ) ( 4/2797 ) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = Appeal by Judge (P) 0. 00699 0. 00435 0. 00515 0. 00556 0. 00663 0. 00114 0. 00197 0. 00367 0. 5633 0. 00214 0. 00532 0. 00459 0. 00414 0. 00438 0. 00563 0. 00313 0. 00526 0. 00611 0. 00410 0. 00143 Appeal by Judge (%) 0. 70% 0. 44% 0. 52% 0. 56% 0. 66% 0. 11% 0. 20% 0. 37% 0. 56% 0. 21% 0. 53% 0. 46% 0. 41% 0.

44% 0. 56% 0. 31% 0. 53% 0. 61% 0. 41% 0. 14% 3. Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judge case study the actual probabilities of cases by judge receiving a reversal are as follows. COMMON PLEAS COURT: Reversal per Judge (P) ( 12/3037 ) = 0. 00395 Reversal per Judge (%) 0. 40% JUDGE Fred Cartolano 7|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES Thomas Crush Patrick Dinkelacker Timothy Hogan Robert Kraft William Mathews William Morrissey Norbert Nadel Arthur Ney, Jr. Richard Niehaus Thomas Nurre John O’ Connor Robert Ruehlman J. Howard Sundermann Ann Marie Tracey Ralph Winkler.

( 10/3372 ) ( 8+4/1258+6001 ) ( 7+2/1954+2308 ) ( 7/3138 ) ( 18/2264 ) ( 22/3032 ) ( 20/2959 ) ( 14/3219 ) ( 16/3353 ) ( 6/3000 ) ( 12/2969 ) ( 18/3205 ) ( 10/955 ) ( 13/ 3141 ) ( 6/3089 ) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 0. 00297 0. 006359 0. 003582 0. 00223 0. 00795 0. 00726 0. 00676 0. 00435 0. 00477 0. 00200 0. 00404 0. 00562 0. 01047 0. 00414 0. 00194 0. 30% 0. 64% 0. 36% 0. 22% 0. 80% 0. 73% 0. 68% 0. 43% 0. 48% 0. 20% 0. 40% 0. 56% 1. 05% 0. 41% 0. 19% DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Reversal per Judge (P) ( 1/2729 ) ( 8+4/1258+6001 ) ( 9/8799 ) ( 3/12970 ) = = = = 0. 00037 0. 00165 0. 00102 0.

00023 Reversal per Judge (%) 0. 04% 0. 17% 0. 10% 0. 02% JUDGE Penelope Cunningham Patrick Dinkelacker Deborah Gaines Ronald Panioto MUNICIPAL COURT: Reversal per Judge (P) ( 4/6149 ) ( 6/7812 ) = = 0. 00065 0. 00077 Reversal per Judge (%) 0. 07% 0. 08% JUDGE Mike Allen Nadine Allen 8|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES Timothy Black David Davis Leslie Isaiah Gaines Karla Grady Deidra Hair Dennis Helmick Timothy Hogan James Patrick Kenney Joseph Luebberes William Mallory Melba Marsh Beth Mattingly Albert Mestermaker Mark Painter Jack Rosen Mark Schweikert David Stockdale John A.

West ( 6/7954 ) ( 5/7736 ) ( 13/5282 ) ( 0/5253 ) ( 0/2532 ) ( 5/7900 ) ( 7+2/1954+2308 ) ( 1/2798 ) ( 8/4698 ) ( 9/8277 ) ( 7/8219 ) ( 1/2971 ) ( 9/4975 ) ( 3/2239 ) ( 13/7790 ) ( 6/5403 ) ( 4/5371 ) ( 2/2797 ) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 0. 00075 0. 00065 0. 00246 0. 00000 0. 00000 0. 00063 0. 000867 0. 00036 0. 00170 0. 00109 0. 00085 0. 00034 0. 00181 0. 00134 0. 00167 0. 00111 0. 00074 0. 00071505 0. 08% 0. 06% 0. 25% 0. 00% 0. 00% 0. 06% 0. 09% 0. 04% 0. 17% 0. 11% 0. 09% 0. 03% 0. 18% 0. 13% 0. 17% 0. 11% 0. 07% 0. 07% 4.

Based on the data provided in the Hamilton County Judge case study the actual probabilities of cases by judge of a reversal given an appeal are as follows. COMMON PLEAS COURT: Reversal given an appeal per Judge (P) ( 12/137 ) ( 10/119 ) ( (8+4/44+19 ) ( 7+2/60+13 ) ( 7/127 ) ( 18/91 ) = = = = = = 0. 08759 0. 08403 0. 18181 0. 11666 0. 05512 0. 19780 Reversal given an appeal per Judge (%) 8. 76% 8. 40% 18. 18% 11. 67% 5. 51% 19. 78% JUDGE Fred Cartolano Thomas Crush Patrick Dinkelacker Timothy Hogan Robert Kraft William Mathews 9|C AS E STU D Y – HA MI LTON C OUN TY JUD G ES

William Morrissey Norbert Nadel Arthur Ney, Jr. Richard Niehaus Thomas Nurre John O’ Connor Robert Ruehlman J. Howard Sundermann Ann Marie Tracey Ralph Winkler ( 22/121 ) ( 20/131 ) ( 14/125 ) ( 16/137 ) ( 6/121 ) ( 12/129 ) ( 18/145 ) ( 10/60 ) ( 13/127 ) ( 6/88 ) = = = = = = = = = = 0. 18182 0. 15267 0. 11200 0. 11679 0. 04959 0. 09302 0. 12414 0. 16667 0. 10236 0. 06818 18. 18% 15. 27% 11. 20% 11. 68% 4. 96% 9. 30% 12. 41% 16. 67% 10. 24% 6. 82% DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Reversal given an appeal per Judge (P) ( 1/7 ) ( (8+4/44+19 ) ( 9/48 ) ( 3/32 ) = = = = 0. 14286 0.

21052 0. 18750 0. 09375 Reversal given an appeal per Judge (%) 14. 29% 21. 05% 18. 75% 9. 38% JUDGE Penelope Cunningham Patrick Dinkelacker Deborah Gaines Ronald Panioto MUNICIPAL COURT: Reversal given an appeal per Judge (P) ( 4/43 ) ( 6/34 ) ( 6/41 ) ( 5/43 ) ( 13/35 ) ( 0/6 ) = = = = = = 0. 09302 0. 17647 0. 14634 0. 11628 0. 37143 0. 00000 Reversal given an appeal per Judge (%) 9. 30% 17. 65% 14. 63% 11. 63% 37. 14% 0. 00% JUDGE Mike Allen Nadine Allen Timothy Black David Davis Leslie Isaiah Gaines Karla Grady 10 | C A S E S T U D Y – H A M I L T O N C O U N T Y J U D G E S.

Deidra Hair Dennis Helmick Timothy Hogan James Patrick Kenney Joseph Luebberes William Mallory Melba Marsh Beth Mattingly Albert Mestermaker Mark Painter Jack Rosen Mark Schweikert David Stockdale John A. West ( 0/5 ) ( 5/29 ) ( 7+2/60+13 ) ( 1/6 ) ( 8/25 ) ( 9/38 ) ( 7/34 ) ( 1/13 ) ( 9/28 ) ( 3/7 ) ( 13/41 ) ( 6/33 ) ( 4/22 ) ( 2/4 ) = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 0. 00000 0. 17241 0. 15384 0. 16667 0. 32000 0. 23684 0. 20588 0. 07692 0. 32143 0. 42857 0. 31707 0. 18182 0. 18182 0. 50000 0. 00% 17. 24% 15. 38% 16. 67% 32. 00% 23. 68% 20. 59% 7. 69% 32. 14% 42. 86% 31.

71% 18. 18% 18. 18% 50. 00% 5. When ranking the judges the rational applied is pulled from Anderson, Sweeney, &Williams (2009) The purpose of the newspapers study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often the result of mistakes made by judges, and the newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes? (p. 184). Based on this analysis the judges will be ranked with appeals as the first criteria as compared to one’s peers in similar courts (Common, Domestic, and Municipal) in a stack ranking.

Second, in the event of similar ratings reversals will be used and if similar ratings again appear then reversal given an appeal will be used. The following table has the judge stack ranked given this criteria. Where 1st is the judge that makes the fewest mistakes. COMMON PLEAS COURT: Reversal Reversal given an per appeal Judge per (%) Judge (%) 0. 19% 0. 36% 0. 19% 6. 82% 11. 67% 6. 82% JUDGE Appeal by Judge (%) 2. 85% 3. 07% 3. 50% RANK Ralph Winkler Timothy Hogan Patrick Dinkelacker 1 2 3 11 | C A S E S T U D Y – H A M I L T O N C O U N T Y J U D G E S Thomas Crush Arthur Ney, Jr.

William Morrissey William Mathews Thomas Nurre Ann Marie Tracey Robert Kraft Richard Niehaus John O’ Connor Norbert Nadel Fred Cartolano Robert Ruehlman J. Howard Sundermann 3. 53% 3. 88% 3. 99% 4. 02% 4. 03% 4. 04% 4. 05% 4. 09% 4. 34% 4. 43% 4. 51% 4. 52% 6. 28% 0. 30% 0. 43% 0. 73% 0. 80% 0. 20% 0. 41% 0. 22% 0. 48% 0. 40% 0. 68% 0. 40% 0. 56% 1. 05% 8. 40% 11. 20% 18. 18% 19. 78% 4. 96% 10. 24% 5. 51% 11. 68% 9. 30% 15. 27% 8. 76% 12. 41% 16. 67% 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Reversal Reversal given an per appeal Judge per (%) Judge (%) 0.

02% 0. 04% 0. 07% 0. 10% 9. 38% 14. 29% 21. 05% 18. 75% JUDGE Appeal by Judge (%) RANK Ronald Panioto Penelope Cunningham Patrick Dinkelacker Deborah Gaines 0. 25% 0. 26% 0. 32% 0. 55% 1 2 3 4 MUNICIPAL COURT 12 | C A S E S T U D Y – H A M I L T O N C O U N T Y J U D G E S JUDGE Appeal by Judge (%) 0. 11% 0. 14% 0. 20% 0. 21% 0. 31% 0. 37% 0. 41% 0. 41% 0. 44% 0. 44% 0. 46% 0. 52% 0. 53% 0. 53% 0. 56% 0. 56% 0. 56% 0. 61% 0. 66% 0. 70% Reversal Reversal given an per appeal Judge per (%) Judge (%) 0. 00% 0. 07% 0. 00% 0. 04% 0. 13% 0. 06% 0. 07% 0. 09% 0. 08% 0. 03% 0.

11% 0. 08% 0. 17% 0. 17% 0. 06% 0. 18% 0. 09% 0. 11% 0. 25% 0. 07% 0. 00% 50. 00% 0. 00% 16. 67% 42. 86% 17. 24% 18. 18% 20. 59% 17. 65% 7. 69% 23. 68% 14. 63% 31. 71% 32. 00% 11. 63% 32. 14% 15. 38% 18. 18% 37. 14% 9. 30% RANK Karla Grady John A. West Deidra Hair James Patrick Kenney Mark Painter Dennis Helmick David Stockdale Melba Marsh Nadine Allen Beth Mattingly William Mallory Timothy Black Jack Rosen Joseph Luebberes David Davis Albert Mestermaker Timothy Hogan Mark Schweikert Leslie Isaiah Gaines Mike Allen 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20.

In conclusion based on the data we can determine which judges are making too many mistakes as compared to one’s peers in the corresponding courts respectively. Although the Hamilton Courts have a solid track record there were still a total of 2,368 cases appealed or 1. 29% of all cases and of that 13. 15% of those cases resulted in a reversal. Given that a mistake in court can have adverse implications judges that are deemed as making too many mistakes might need to be examined as an impartial representative of the court. 13 | C A S E S T U D Y – H A M I L T O N C O U N T Y J U D G E S.