Inferring the Winning Party in the Supreme Court from the Pattern of Questioning at Oral Argument
研究发现，律师在最高法院口头辩论中被提问的次数越多、问题越长，其胜诉可能性越低。该结果通过回归分析验证，并探讨了法官利用口头辩论表达观点和影响同僚的理论基础。
It is no longer a secret that a lawyer arguing a case before the Supreme Court is more likely to lose if he is asked more questions than his opponent during oral arguments. This paper rigorously tests that hypothesis and the related hypothesis that a lawyer is more likely to lose if he is asked longer questions (measured by words per question) than his opponent. Using regression analysis, we find strong evidence for both hypotheses: the number of questions asked and the number of words per question asked are both negatively correlated with a party’s likelihood of winning. Although the paper is primarily empirical, we also explore the theoretical basis for these results. We analyze the role of deliberation in appellate courts and explain that because formal deliberation is often quite limited, judges use oral argument as an alternative way to express their opinions and attempt to influence other judges.