IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/empleg/v6y2009i1p147-176.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Piercing the Veil of Statewide Data: The Case of Vanishing Trials in North Carolina

Author

Listed:
  • Robert Moog

Abstract

Marc Galanter's 2003 report to the ABA on the declining rate of trials in federal and state courts has generated a good deal of discussion. This article adds to that literature by narrowing the focus to the fate of trials in one state (North Carolina) between 1987 and 2005, and then moving to the next level to determine if statewide trends are replicated in the six largest counties in the state. Regarding jury trials, the downward trends are quite consistent at both the state and county levels, but bench trials present a far more complex picture. Although the status of bench trials in North Carolina remains unclear, the research emphasizes the importance of the data‐collection process, and the necessity of looking to the local level to understand the complexities underlying what can appear as statewide trends.

Suggested Citation

  • Robert Moog, 2009. "Piercing the Veil of Statewide Data: The Case of Vanishing Trials in North Carolina," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(1), pages 147-176, March.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:6:y:2009:i:1:p:147-176
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01140.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01140.x
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2009.01140.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Brent D. Boyea & Paul Brace, 2021. "Revisiting the Business of State Supreme Courts in the 21st Century," Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(3), pages 684-696, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:empleg:v:6:y:2009:i:1:p:147-176. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1740-1461 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.