Replication Data for: Deferring, Deliberating, or Dodging Review: Explaining Counterjudge Success in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

While panel effects---instances where panel composition affects the votes cast by judges---have been widely documented, scholars are unsure why these patterns persist. We outline three possible mechanisms, acquiescence, deliberation, and strategy, through which panel effects might occur, develop indicators for each, and test them using a dataset of search and seizure cases decided by the U.S. Courts of Appeals between 1953 and 2010, as well as suggest future avenues of inquiry. Our analysis provides some evidence that counterjudge success stems from a combination of all three theories, though strategic considerations have the substantively strongest and most consistent effects.

尽管合议庭效应（panel effects）——即合议庭组成影响法官投票结果的现象——已被广泛实证记录，但学界尚未厘清此类现象持续存在的根源。本文系统梳理了合议庭效应可能存在的三类作用机制：顺从（acquiescence）、审议（deliberation）与策略（strategy），并为每类机制构建了专属衡量指标；随后采用1953年至2010年间美国联邦上诉法院审结的搜查与扣押案件数据集，对前述指标开展实证检验，并提出了未来的研究方向。本研究的分析结果显示，对立法官胜诉的情形源于三类机制的共同作用，尽管策略性考量在实质层面展现出最强且最一致的影响效应。