No abstract

No abstract

 AbstractDo judges make decisions that are truly impartial? A wide range of experimental and field studies reveal that several extra-legal factors influence judicial decision making. Demographic characteristics of judges and litigants affect judges' decisions. Judges also rely heavily on intuitive reasoning in deciding cases, making them vulnerable to the use of mental shortcuts that can lead to mistakes. Furthermore, judges sometimes rely on facts outside the record and rule more favorably towards litigants who are more sympathetic or with whom they share demographic characteristics. On the whole, judges are excellent decision makers, and sometimes resist common errors of judgment that influence ordinary adults. The weight of the evidence, however, suggests that judges are vulnerable to systematic deviations from the ideal of judicial impartiality.

No abstract

of due process. Unless any resulting error is "harmless," such decisions are subject to reversal.'Evidence rules excluding relevant information fall into two categories. 6 First, "intrinsic exclusionary rules" exclude relevant information on the ground that its omission will promote accurate fact finding. Rule 403 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, which excludes relevant information where its probative value is outweighed by the risk that it will confuse or mislead the fact finder, is an example." Second, "ex-I See, e.g., MIRJAN R. DAMAKA, EVIDENCE LAW ADRiFr 149 (1997) (noting the "striking emphasis on the screening of information to be submitted to triers of fact").2 See Orie L. Phillips, A Symposium On Evidence: Foreword, 5 VAND. L. REV. 275, 275(1952) ("'Evidence' imports the means by which any alleged matter of fact, the truth of which is submitted to investigation, is established or disproved. It embraces the rules of law governing the admissibility or rejection of proffered proof and the weight to be given to proof that is admitted." (footnote omitted)). trinsic exclusionary rules" exclude relevant evidence to promote a policy interest, regardless of its impact on the accuracy of fact finding. 9 Examples include rules excluding evidence of pretrial settlement proposals' o as well as various privileges, such as the attorney-client privilege."The best way to prevent inadmissible information from influencing jurors is to shield them from it altogether. Despite the best efforts of courts, however, jurors are sometimes exposed to inadmissible information through media accounts of the case or impermissible comments by lawyers or witnesses during trial. When such exposure occurs, judges attempt to undermine its influence by instructing jurors to limit their use of the information or to disregard it entirely. 2 Judicial opinions on the issue tend to embrace a "strong presumption that proper limiting instructions will reduce the possibility of prejudice to an acceptable level."' 3 Nonetheless, courts and commentators have long worried that jurors cannot "unbit[e] the apple of knowledge."' 4 For example, Justice RobertJackson once argued that " [t]he naive assumption that preju-9 DAMA KA, supra note 1, at 12.10 FED. R. EVID. 408; see also id. 410 (excluding guilty pleas). Rule 408 actually is a hybrid. Evidence of settlement offers is excludable for two reasons: "(1) The evidence is irrelevant, since the offer may be motivated by a desire for peace rather than from any concession of weakness of position," and "(2) ... promotion of the public policy favoring the compromise and settlement of disputes." FED. R. EVID. 408 advisory committee's note. Because the latter is described as "a more consistently impressive ground," id., Rule 408 is best placed in the extrinsic category. 288, 301, 303 (1981) (claiming that an instruction to disregard inadmissible testimony is a "powerful tool" that can be used "to remove from the jury's deliberations any influence of unspoken adverse inferences" (internal quotation marks ...