United States: Blog Post No. 1,000: Comparing Oral Argument In The California And Illinois Supreme Courts

Last Updated: July 25 2017
Article by Kirk Jenkins

Today marks the milestone of my 1,000th blog post since Appellate Strategist began publishing on February 23, 2010.

I thought we'd do a first today: comparing the two Supreme Courts we study in the same post.  Specifically, since I've had the honor of appearing at both the California and Illinois Supreme Courts, I thought we'd compare the data for the past year in each court.

First, a bit of background.  It's not one of the more well-known areas of data analytics on appellate decision making, but data analysis of oral argument appears to have begun in 2004, with Sarah Levien Shullman's article for the Journal of Appellate Practice and Process.  Shullman analyzed oral arguments in ten cases at the United States Supreme Court, noting each question asked by the Justices and assigning a score from one to five to each depending on how helpful or hostile she considered the question to be.  Once seven of the ten cases had been decided, she made predictions in the remaining three, based upon the correlations in the first seven.  Shullman concluded that it was possible to predict the result in most cases by a simple measure – the party asked the most questions generally lost.

The year after Shullman's study appeared, then-Judge John Roberts addressed the same issue in a study of Supreme Court arguments between 1980 and 2003.  Like Shullman, Roberts concluded that the losing side was almost always asked more questions.

Professor Lawrence S. Wrightsman took a detailed look at Supreme Court arguments in a 2008 book.  He chose twenty-four cases from the 2004 term, analyzing the number and tone of the Justices' questions to each side.  He concluded that although simple questions counts were not a highly accurate predictor of ultimate case results, question counts plus the content score were.

Timothy Johnson and three other professors published their analysis in 2009.  The professors examined every Supreme Court case from 1979 through 1995, isolating both the number of questions per Justice and the number of words used in each question.  Once again, the study concluded that all other factors being equal, the party asked more questions generally lost.

Professors Lee Epstein and William M. Landes and Judge Richard A. Posner published their study in 2010.  Epstein, Landes and Posner used Professor Johnson's database, tracking the number of questions and average words used by each Justice.  Like nearly every other researcher, they concluded that all else being equal, the more questions a Justice asked a side, the more likely he or she was to vote against the party.   Our own study, which included every civil and criminal oral argument at the Illinois Supreme Court since January 1, 2008, reached the same conclusion – by and large, the side receiving the most questions lost.

We report the average questions per side in civil cases in California and Illinois in Table 250 below, based on all arguments from May 2016 to May 2017.  What we see is that the California Supreme Court is a considerably "hotter" bench than the Illinois Supreme Court is.  In California, appellants received an average of 32.48 questions.  Appellants in Illinois averaged only 11.53.  Respondents in California averaged 30.18 questions in civil cases.  Appellees in Illinois averaged only 9.26.

We report the total number of questions asked by each California Justice, segment by segment, in Table 251 below.  Justice Cuellar led in the opening segment of civil cases, totaling 256 questions.  Justice Liu was next at 225, followed by Justices Kruger (187), Werdegar (184) and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (172).  Justices Chin and Corrigan asked the fewest questions of civil appellants with 151 and 129, respectively.

The order was juggled somewhat for respondents.  Justice Liu led by a substantial margin, asking 381 questions of respondents.  Justice Cuellar was next with 262 questions.  Justice Corrigan was third at 224, followed by Justice Werdegar (215), Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (170), Justice Kruger (130) and Justice Chin (116).

Justice Liu also led during rebuttals, asking 67 questions.  Justice Werdegar was next at 63, followed by Justice Corrigan (51), Justice Chin (45), Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (36), Justice Kruger (23) and Justice Cuellar (21).

In Table 252, we report the average number of questions per segment in civil cases for each California Justice.  Justice Cuellar averaged 5.12 questions during appellants' opening argument.  Justice Liu was next at 4.5.  Justices Kruger, Werdegar and Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye were bunched at 3.74, 3.68 and 3.44, respectively.  Justice Chin averaged 3.02 questions during appellants' opening argument, and Justice Corrigan averaged 2.87.

Justice Liu led during respondents' arguments, averaging 7.62 questions.  Justice Cuellar averaged 5.24 questions.  Justices Corrigan and Werdegar averaged 4.98 and 4.3, respectively.  Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye was next, averaging 3.4 questions to respondents.  Justices Kruger and Chin averaged the fewest questions to respondents in civil cases at 2.6 and 2.32, respectively.

Justice Liu also led during rebuttals, averaging 1.34 questions.  Justice Werdegar was next at 1.26, followed by Justice Corrigan at 1.13.  The other Justices each averaged less than one question during rebuttals: Justice Chin (0.9), Chief Justice Cantil-Sakauye (0.72), Justice Kruger (0.46) and Justice Cuellar (0.42).

Below, we report the average questions per segment during the same period for the Justices of the Illinois Supreme Court.  For appellants' opening arguments, Justice Thomas averaged 2.91 questions, which would have ranked sixth on the California Supreme Court.  Justice Theis was next, averaging 2.69 questions.  Justice Garman averaged 1.83, Justice Burke 1.17, and Chief Justice Karmeier one question during appellants' opening.  Justice Kilbride averaged 0.18 questions per opening.

The Court asked even fewer questions during appellees' arguments.  Justice Thomas led again, averaging 1.55 questions per argument – which would have been seventh in California.  Justice Theis averaged 1.46 questions, Justice Garman 0.58, Justice Kilbride 0.36 and Justice Freeman 0.33.  Neither Chief Justice Karmeier nor Justice Burke asked any questions of appellees in civil cases in the past year.

For rebuttals, Justice Garman led, averaging 1.08 questions.  Justice Theis was next, averaging 0.69 questions.  Justice Thomas averaged 0.45, Chief Justice Karmeier averaged 0.2 questions, Justice Kilbride averaged 0.09, and Justices Burke and Freeman asked no questions during rebuttals.

Join us back here tomorrow as we begin our next 1,000 posts by addressing the question we started out with: will the California Supreme Court be like every other appellate court researchers have studied, on average asking the most questions of the losing side?

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.