The Substantive and Institutional Concerns of Federal District Judges: Explaining Outcomes in Fourth Amendment Tort Suits.

Using original data collected on cases decided in federal district courts in 2006/07, I explore the determinants of outcomes in citizen suits against police. Consistent with prior literature, I find that policy preferences affect outcomes. Thus, Republican-appointed judges decide more cases in favor of defendants, consistent with preferring strong police power. In addition, judges with experience as prosecutors decide more cases in favor of policeâ??but only in cases involving claims of excessive force. District judges also respond to the preferences of the appellate circuit under which they operate. Finally, district judges are highly sensitive to the institutional setting in which they operate, and in particular to the rules and norms about juries in civil cases. I find that judges give more cases to the jury (rather than deciding it themselves) when the case is likely to be one that has disputes about the facts or is otherwise likely to require a discretionary call. This trend is consistent with a judiciary that respects the traditional role of the jury and is willing to limit their own discretion accordingly. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]