JANUARY 26, 2018
HAMILTON COUNTY JUDGES
STATISTICAL METHODS AND DECISION MAKING - A MANAGERIAL REPORT
PRESENTED BY: SWAPNA S, DILEEP VUPPALADHADIAM, GIRISH P SHANTHARAMA, CHINGAKHAM ROSHAN SINGH
GREAT LAKES INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
PGPBABI – DECEMBER, 2017
Great Lakes Institute of Management
TABLE OF CONTENTS
HAMILTON COUNTY JUDGES CASE – THE PROBLEM................................................................................. 2
ADOPTED METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................ 2
DATA ANALYSIS .......................................................................................................................................... 3
1. PROBABILITY OF CASES APPEALED AND REVERSED IN THREE COURTS ........................................ 3
2. DATA ANALYSIS OF COMMON COURT ........................................................................................... 3
3. DATA ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC COURT .......................................................................................... 4
4. DATA ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL COURT ......................................................................................... 4
5. Judges with maximum efficiency with lowest probability of appeals and reversals .................... 5
INFERENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 5
1
Great Lakes Institute of Management
HAMILTON COUNTY JUDG ES CASE – THE PRO BLEM
Hamilton County judges try thousands of cases per year. In an overwhelming majority of cases disposed,
the verdict stands are rendered. However, some cases are appealed, and of those appealed, some of the
cases are reversed. Kristen Deglaze of the The Cincinnati Enquirer conducted a study of cases handled by
Hamilton County judges over the years 1994 through 1997 (The Cincinnati Enquirer, January 11, 1998).
Shown in Data File Judge.xls View in a new window are the results for 182,908 cases handled (disposed)
by 38 judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court and Municipal Court. Two of the judges
(Dinkelacker and Hogan) did not serve in the same court for the entire three-year period.
The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often
the result of mistakes made by judges and the newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a
good job and which were making too many mistakes. You have been called in to assist in the data analysis.
Use your knowledge of probability and conditional probability to help with the ranking of the judges. You
also may be able to analyze the likelihood of cases handled by different courts being appealed and
reversed.
Prepare a report with your rankings of the judges. Also, include an analysis of the likelihood of appeal
and case reversal in the three courts. At a minimum your report should include the following:
The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts
The probability of a case being appealed for each judge
The probability of a case being reversed for each judge
The probability of reversal given an appeal for each judge
Rank the judges within each court. State the criteria you used and provide a rationale for your choice.
ADOPTED METHODOLOGY
Based on the available data and data analysis regarding Hamilton County Judges in three different courts,
the judges can be ranked appropriately by their probability to be appealed cases, reversed cases and
combination of the both. With the help statistics and probability the calculations are made to arrive at:
i. The probability of appeal, rank by probability of appeal,
ii. The probability of reversal, rank by probability of reversal,
iii. The conditional probability of reversal given appeal, rank by conditional probability of reversal
given appeal and overall sum of ranks.
Those judges who rank highest (i.e., 1st, 2nd, 3rd…) have the lowest probability to have appealed cases,
reversed cases and lowest conditional probability of reversed cases given appeal.
By ranking the judges, we can arrive at ‘To what extent Judges’ judgements are accepted?’ there by
arrive at the effectiveness of the judgement made by these judges. Effort has also been made to show
analysis which interprets who is the most effective judges overall.
3 different courts have been ranked: Common Court, Domestic Court and Municipal Court. The overall
rankings are arrived at by summing up all of the rankings by all of the three probability variables to
arrive at the most efficient judges among the three courts.
2
DATA ANALYSIS
1. PROBABILITY OF CASES APPEALED AND REVERSED IN THREE COURTS
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Court Total Total Total P(R/A) P(A) P(A and R)
Disposed Appealed Reversed =(3)/(2) =(2)/(1) =(4)*(5)
Cases Cases Cases
Common Court 43945 1762 199 0.11294 0.04010 0.00453
Domestic Court 30499 106 17 0.16038 0.00348 0.00056
Municipal Court 108464 500 104 0.20800 0.00461 0.00096
Grand Total 182908 2368 320 0.00604
2. DATA ANALYSIS OF COMMON COURT
Judge Sum of Sum of Sum of P(A) P(R) P(A Rank Rank Rank based on Sum
Disposed Appealed Reversed and R) based on based on P(A and R) of
P(A) P(R) Ranks
Ann Marie Tracey 3141 127 13 0.0404 0.1024 0.0041 9 7 8 24
Arthur Ney Jr. 3219 125 14 0.0388 0.1120 0.0043 5 8 9 22
Fred Cartolano 3037 137 12 0.0451 0.0876 0.0040 14 5 6 25
J. Howard Sundermann Jr. 955 60 10 0.0628 0.1667 0.0105 16 13 16 45
John O'Connor 2969 129 12 0.0434 0.0930 0.0040 12 6 7 25
Norbert Nadel 2959 131 20 0.0443 0.1527 0.0068 13 12 13 38
Patrick Dinkelacker 1258 44 8 0.0350 0.1818 0.0064 3 14 12 29
Ralph Winkler 3089 88 6 0.0285 0.0682 0.0019 1 3 1 5
Richard Niehaus 3353 137 16 0.0409 0.1168 0.0048 11 10 10 31
Robert Kraft 3138 127 7 0.0405 0.0551 0.0022 10 2 3 15
Robert Ruehlman 3205 145 18 0.0452 0.1241 0.0056 15 11 11 37
Great Lakes Institute of Management
Thomas Crush 3372 119 10 0.0353 0.0840 0.0030 4 4 4 12
Thomas Nurre 3000 121 6 0.0403 0.0496 0.0020 8 1 2 11
Timothy Hogan 1954 60 7 0.0307 0.1167 0.0036 2 9 5 16
William Mathews 2264 91 18 0.0402 0.1978 0.0080 7 16 15 38
William Morrissey 3032 121 22 0.0399 0.1818 0.0073 6 14 14 34
3. DATA ANALYSIS OF DOMESTIC COURT
Judge Sum of Sum of Sum of P(A) P(R) P(A Rank Rank Rank based on Sum
Disposed Appealed Reversed and R) based based P(A and R) of
on P(A) on P(R) Ranks
Deborah Gaines 8799 48 9 0.0055 0.1875 0.0010 4 3 4 11
Patrick Dinkelacker 6001 19 4 0.0032 0.2105 0.0007 3 4 3 10
Penelope Cunningham 2729 7 1 0.0026 0.1429 0.0004 2 2 2 6
Ronald Panioto 12970 32 3 0.0025 0.0938 0.0002 1 1 1 3
4. DATA ANALYSIS OF MUNICIPAL COURT
Judge Sum of Sum of Sum of P(A) P(R) P(A Rank Rank Rank based on Sum
Disposed Appealed Reversed and R) based based P(A and R) of
on P(A) on P(R) Ranks
Albert Mestemaker 4975 28 9 0.0056 0.3214 0.0018 16 17 19 52
Beth Mattingly 2971 13 1 0.0044 0.0769 0.0003 10 3 3 16
David Davis 7736 43 5 0.0056 0.1163 0.0006 15 5 6 26
David Stockdale 5371 22 4 0.0041 0.1818 0.0007 7 11 9 27
Deidra Hair 2532 5 0 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000 3 1 1 5
Dennis Helmick 7900 29 5 0.0037 0.1724 0.0006 6 9 5 20
Jack Rosen 7790 41 13 0.0053 0.3171 0.0017 13 15 17 45
James Patrick Kenney 2798 6 1 0.0021 0.1667 0.0004 4 8 4 16
John A. West 2797 4 2 0.0014 0.5000 0.0007 2 20 8 30
4
Great Lakes Institute of Management
Joseph Luebbers 4698 25 8 0.0053 0.3200 0.0017 14 16 18 48
Karla Grady 5253 6 0 0.0011 0.0000 0.0000 1 1 1 3
Leslie Isaiah Gaines 5282 35 13 0.0066 0.3714 0.0025 19 18 20 57
Mark Painter 2239 7 3 0.0031 0.4286 0.0013 5 19 16 40
Mark Schweikert 5403 33 6 0.0061 0.1818 0.0011 18 11 15 44
Melba Marsh 8219 34 7 0.0041 0.2059 0.0009 8 13 12 33
Mike Allen 6149 43 4 0.0070 0.0930 0.0007 20 4 7 31
Nadine Allen 7812 34 6 0.0044 0.1765 0.0008 9 10 11 30
Timothy Black 7954 41 6 0.0052 0.1463 0.0008 12 6 10 28
Timothy Hogan 2308 13 2 0.0056 0.1538 0.0009 17 7 13 37
William Mallory 8277 38 9 0.0046 0.2368 0.0011 11 14 14 39
5. JUDGES WITH MAXIMUM EFFICIENCY WITH LOWEST PROBABILITY OF APPEALS AND REVERSALS
Based on the above Data Analysis, below are the judges who displayed the maximum efficiency in rendering judgements.
Court Judge
Common Court Ralph Winkler
Domestic Court Ronald Panioto
Municipal Court Karla Grady and Deidra Hair
INFERENCE
a. Judge Ralph Winkler is the best Judge of Common Court;
b. Ronald Panioto is the best Judge in Domestic Court; and
c. Karla Grady has the best Judge in Municipal Court. Deidra Hair could also be place equivalent to Karla Grady.
