Hamilton County Judges Report

Submitted To

Prof. Arti Deo

Submitted By

TANYA GARG (A013)

YUGANDHAR CHEDE (A014)
NIKITA GUPTA (A015)
ADITI SINGH (A016)
DIVYA MISHRA (A017)
PAULAMI SEN (A018)
PUSHTI GOENKA (A028)

1
INDEX

Sr. No. Content Page No.

1. Case Problem 3

2. Introduction 4

3. Main Body 4

4. Conclusions, Suggestions, 5
Recommendations

5. Annexures 5-11

2
 Hamilton County Judges

Hamilton County judges try thousands of cases per year. In an overwhelming majority of the
cases disposed, the verdict stands as rendered. However, some cases are appealed, and of
those appealed, some of the cases are reversed. A study of cases handled by Hamilton County
judges over the years 1994 through 1996 was conducted. The results for 182,908 cases
handled by 38 judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Municipal Court
are given in the Excel file. Two of the judges did not serve in the same court for the entire
three-year period.
The purpose of the study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often
the result of mistakes made by judges, and the study wanted to know which judges were
doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes. You are called in to assist 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 analyse the likelihood of appeal and reversal
for cases handled by different courts.
Managerial Report
Prepare a report with your rankings of the judges. Also, include an analysis of the likelihood
of appeal and reversal in the three courts. At a minimum, your report should include the
following:
1. The probability of cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts.
2. The probability of a case being appealed for each judge.
3. The probability of a case being reversed for each judge.
4. The probability of reversal given an appeal for each judge.
5. Rank the judges within each court. State the criteria you used and provide a rationale for your
choice.

3
INTRODUCTION

This case study is in with reference to the performance of the judges in the different courts of
Hamilton County. In this case study three different courts namely Common pleas court,
Domestic relations court and Municipal court are analyzed. The performance of Judges in each
court is analyzed using probability techniques.

ANALYSIS

A. Common Pleas Court

• Common court disposed a total of 43945 cases of which 1762 were appealed and 199 cases
were reversed.
• This makes common pleas court the least efficient court with the probability of cases being
reversed being at 0.0045283.
• In the Common pleas court judge Thomas Nurre is the most efficient judge as the probability
of reversal is just 0.049.
• Judges Patrick Dinkelacker and William Morrissey are the least efficient judges as the
probability of reversal for them is 0.18181818

B. Domestic Relations Court

• Domestic Relations Court disposed a total of 30499 cases of which 106 were appealed and 17
cases were reversed.
• This makes common pleas court the most efficient court with the probability of cases being
reversed being at 0.0005573.
• Domestic Relations Court has the fewest judges having only 4 judges.
• In the Domestic Relations court Ronald Panioto is considered to be the most efficient with the
Probability of 0.093 for the case to be reversed.
• Patrick Dinkelacker is the least efficient judge as the probability of reversal is 0.210526316.

C. Municipal Court
• Municipal Court disposed a total of 108464 cases of which 500 were appealed and 104 cases
were reversed.
• Municipal Court handles the largest volume of cases.
• Municipal Court also has the highest number of judges at 20.
• In the municipal court the judges Karla Grandy and Deidra Hair are considered to be the most
efficient with the corresponding probabilities of 0 for the case to be reversed.
• John A.West is the least efficient judge with probability of reversal being at 0.5.

CONCLUSION

• The probability of the cases being appealed and reversed in the three different courts given
based on the calculations in the report provides that the probability of cases being appealed and
reversed in Common Pleas Court is less than that of the probability of cases being appealed and
reversed in Domestic Relations Court and Probability of cases being appealed and reversed in
Municipal Court.

4
 • In Domestic Relations Court, Ronald Panioto has the lowest probability in terms of appeal and
reversal hence, he can be awarded the 1st rank. For the Common Pleas court, the first rank can
be awarded to Thomas Nurre as he has the lowest probability for the cases being appealed and
reversed. In the situation of Municipal Court, Karla Grady can be awarded the first rank as the
probability of a case being appealed to that of total disposed cases is lesser.
• The ranks have been awarded based on the ratio of the cases appealed and reversed, where such
probability is low the rank for the judge has been awarded to be high.

ANNEXURE:

ANSWER 1

Intersection of appealed case and reversed case = number of reversed case

Probability of cases being appealed and reversed in any court = Number of reversed cases / Tota

Q1.
Probability of cases being appealed and reversed in Common Pleas Court = 199/43945
Probability of cases being appealed and reversed in Domestic Relations Court
= 17/30499
Probability of cases being appealed and reversed in Municipal Court = 104/108464

Q2 ,Q3 AND Q4
QUESTION QUESTION
2 3 QUESTION 4

Common P(B)(A)=P(A)INT
please court T A B P(A)= A/T P(B) =B/T B / P(A) =P(B)/P

Probability probability
of a case of a case
being being
Total appealed reversed Probability of a
cases Appealed Reversed before before reversed given
Judge disposed Cases Cases each judge each judge each judge
Fred
cartolano 3037 137 12 0.04511 0.003951

Thomas crush 3372 119 10 0.035291 0.002966

5
Patrick *Mentioned *Mentioned
dinkelacker 1258 44 8 below* below* *Mentioned belo
Timothy *Mentioned *Mentioned
hogan 1954 60 7 below* below* *Mentioned belo

Roberrt craft 3138 127 7 0.040472 0.002231

William
mathews 2264 91 18 0.040194 0.007951
William
morrissey 3032 121 22 0.039908 0.007256 0..181818182

Norbert Nadel 2959 131 20 0.044272 0.006759

Arthur Ney ,
Jr 3219 125 14 0.038832 0.004349
Richard
Niehus 3353 137 16 0.040859 0.004772

ThomasNurre 3000 121 6 0.040333 0.002

John O'Connar 2969 129 12 0.043449 0.004042

Robert
Ruehiman 3205 145 18 0.045242 0.005616

J. Howard
Sundermann 955 60 10 0.062827 0.017047
Ann Marie
Tracey 3141 127 13 0.040443 0.004139

Ralph Winkler 3089 88 6 0.028488 0.001942

Total 43945 1762 199

Domestic P(B)(A)=P(A)INT
Relation T A B P(A)= A/T P(B) =B/T B / P(A) =P(B)/P

Probability probability
of a case of a case
being being
Total appealed reversed Probability of a
cases Appealed Reversed before before reversed given
JUDGE disposed Cases Cases each judge each judge each judge

6
Penelole
Cunningham 2729 7 1 0.002565 0.000366

Patrick *Mentioned *Mentioned

Dinkelacker 6001 19 4 below* below* *Mentioned belo
Deborah
Gaines 8799 48 9 0.005455 0.001023
Ronald
Panioto 12970 32 3 0.002467 0.000231
Total 30499 106 17

Municipal P(B)(A)=P(A)INT
Court T A B P(A)= A/T P(B) =B/T B / P(A) =P(B)/P

Probability probability
of a case of a case
being being
Total appealed reversed Probability of a
cases Appealed Reversed before before reversed given
JUDGE disposed Cases Cases each judge each judge each judge

Mike Allen 6149 43 4 0.006993 0.000651

Nadine Allen 7812 34 6 0.004352 0.000768

Timothy Black 7954 41 6 0.005155 0.000754

David Davis 7736 43 5 0.005558 0.000646

Leslie Isaiah
Gaines 5282 35 13 0.006626 0.002461

Karla Grady 5253 6 0 0.001143 0

Deira Hair 2532 5 0 0.001975 0
Dennis
Helmick 7900 29 5 0.003671 0.000633
Timothy *Mentioned *Mentioned
Hogan 2308 13 2 below* below* *Mentioned belo

James Patrick
Kenney 2798 6 1 0.002144 0.000357

7
Joseph
Luebbers 4698 25 8 0.005321 0.001703
William
Mallory 8277 38 9 0.004591 0.001087

Melba Marsh 8219 34 7 0.004137 0.000852

Beth Mattingly 2971 13 1 0.004376 0.000337

Albert
Mestemaker 4975 28 9 0.005628 0.001809

Mark Painter 2239 7 3 0.003126 0.00134

Jack Rosen 7790 41 13 0.005263 0.001669

Mark
Schweikert 5403 33 6 0.006108 0.00111
David
stockdale 5371 22 4 0.004096 0.000745

John A West 2797 4 2 0.00143 0.000715

QUESTION QUESTION
2 3 QUESTION 4

P(B)(A)=P(A)INT
judge T A B P(A)= A/T P(B) =B/T B / P(A) =P(B)/P

Patrick
Dinkelacker *

common
pleas court 1258 44 8
Domestic
Relations
Court 6001 19 4
7259 63 12 0.008679 0.001653

Timothy
Hogan*

8
common
pleas court 1954 60 7
Municipal
Court 2308 13 2
4262 73 9 0.071281 0.002112

Question 5

Common
please court T A B Rank
Fred
Cortlando 3037 137 12 5

Thomas Crush 3371 119 10 4

Patrick
Dinkelacker 1258 44 8 15
Timothy
Hogan 1954 60 7 9

Robert Kraft 3138 127 18 2

William
Mathews 2264 91 22 16
William
Morrissey 3032 121 20 14
Norbert
Nadel 2959 131 14 12
Richard
Niehaus 3219 125 16 8

Thomas Nurre 3353 137 6 10

John O'
Connor 3000 121 12 1

Robert Kraft 2969 129 18 6

J howard
Sundermann 3205 145 10 11
Ann Marie
Tracey 955 60 13 113

Ralph Winkier 3141 127 6 7

9
Total 43945 1762 199

Domestic
relations
court

Penelope
Cunningham 2729 7 1 2

patrick
dinkelacker 6001 19 4 4
Deborah
Gaines 8799 48 9 3

RonaldPanioto 12970 32 3 1
Total 30499 106 17

Municipal
court

Mike Allen 6149 43 4

Nadine Allen 7812 34 10

Timothy Black 7954 41 6

David Davis 7736 43 5

Leslie Israih
Gaines 5282 35 18

Karla Grady 5253 6 1

Deidra Hair 2532 5 1

Dennis
Helmick 7900 29 9
Timothy
Hogan 2308 13 7

James Patrick
Kenney 2798 6 8
Joseph
Luebbers 4698 25 16
William
Mallory 8277 38 14

10
Melba Marsh 8219 34 13

Beth Mattingly 2971 13 3+D132

Albert
Mestemakar 4975 28 17

Mark Paintar 2239 7 19

Jack Rosen 7790 41 15

Mark
Schweikert 5403 33 12

Jack Rosen 5371 22 11

Mark
Schweikert 2797 4 20
Total 108464 500 104

11