Recent tort reform debates have been hindered by a lack of knowledge of how jurors assess damages. Two studies investigated whether jurors are able to appropriately compartmentalize compensatory and punitive damages.
This paper evaluates the impact of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity, which is defined as the differences in average nominal prison sentence lengths for comparable caseloads assigned to different judges.
The Advisory Committee on Civil Rules of the Judicial Conference of the United States asked RAND to conduct further analyses of the CJRA evaluation data to see if additional light could be shed on discovery management.
To provide an empirical basis for the ongoing debate about punitive damages, the authors drew on the ICJ's jury verdict database to conduct the first close analysis of trends and patterns in punitive awards for financial injuries.
This report is the executive summary of an Institute for Civil Justice analysis of trends and patterns in punitive damage awards in financial injury cases in selected jurisdictions during the period 1985 through 1994.
This report provides the technical details of an Institute for Civil Justice analysis of trends and patterns in punitive damage awards in financial injury cases in selected jurisdictions during the period 1985 through 1994.
The authors of the current study examine mandatory minimum drug sentences from the viewpoint of cost-effectiveness at achieving such national drug control objectives as reducing cocaine consumption and cocaine-related crime.
Evidence that juries treat corporate defendants less favorably than individual defendants is often cited in support of the widely held view that juries are biased against wealthy "deep-pocket" defendants.
In most states, that system makes little or no allowance for the disabilities of such offenders, resulting in dispositions that are inequitably harsh and in all likelihood costlier to the public than need be the case.