 PDF Version | 122 Downloads |
Christine M. Venter*
Abstract:
This Article reports on a study conducted by the Author on one hundred randomly selected oral arguments before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The study found that the losing side is routinely asked between two and three times as many questions as the winning side. This confirms the findings of studies conducted on Supreme Court oral arguments. The Author further found that the tone and tenor of the questions posed to the losing side also appear more hostile. The Author posits that confirmation bias may be at play and that judges may be subconsciously posing questions in a more hostile or negative way to elicit support for the way in which they are predisposed to decide a case. Given this phenomenon, the Author questions the Seventh Circuit’s practice of routinely hearing oral argument in almost every case.
* Director, Legal Writing Program, Notre Dame Law School. I would like to thank the Association of Legal Writing Directors and Lexis Nexis for generously providing a grant to fund this research. I would also like to thank my wonderful former research assistants, Paul Kerridge and Lavarr Barnett. Any errors are mine.