Judicial Fact Discretion
40 Pages Posted: 20 Nov 2006 Last revised: 25 Aug 2022
There are 2 versions of this paper
Date Written: November 2006
Abstract
Does it matter for the outcome of a trial who the judge is? Legal practitioners typically believe that the answer is yes, yet legal scholarship sees trial judges as predictably enforcing established law. Following Frank (1951), we suggest here that trial judges exercise considerable discretion in finding facts, which explains the practitioners' perspective and other aspects of trials. We identify two motivations for the exercise of such discretion: judicial policy preferences and judges' aversion to reversal on appeal when the law is unsettled. In the latter case, judges exercising fact discretion find the facts that fit the settled precedents, even when they have no policy preferences. In a standard model of a tort, judicial fact discretion leads to setting of damages unpredictable from true facts of the case but predictable from knowledge of judicial preferences, it distorts the number and severity of accidents, and generates welfare losses. It also raises the incidence of litigation relative to settlement, and encourages litigants to take extreme positions in court, especially in new and complex disputes where the law is unsettled.
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation
Do you have negative results from your research you’d like to share?
Recommended Papers
-
By Nicola Gennaioli and Andrei Shleifer
-
Incentives to Innovate and Social Harm: Laissez-Faire, Authorization or Penalties?
By Giovanni Immordino, Marco Pagano, ...
-
On the Role of Inequalities in Legal Systems: A Tocquevilian View
By Bertrand Crettez and Bruno Deffains
-
Joint Custody in the Italian Courts
By Guido De Blasio and Daniela Vuri