15. In some jurisdictions, there are pretrial conterences, where the judge con before trial. Observational data...

Transcribed Image Text:

15. In some jurisdictions, there are "pretrial conterences, where the judge con before trial. Observational data suggest that pretrial conferences promote set fers with the opposing lawyers to settle the case or at least to define the issues In New Jersey courts, pretrial conferences were mandatory. However, an ex tements and speed up trials, but there were doubts. personal periment was done in 7 counties. During a six-month period, 2,954 p injury cases (mainly automobile accidents) were assigned at random to treat. made optional-either lawyer could request one. Among the treatment cases, remained mandatory. For the 1,459 treatment cases, the conferences were ment or control. For the 1,495 control cases (group A), pretrial conferences 701 opted for a pretrial conference (group C), and 758 did not (group B). ences encouraged cases to settle before reaching trial; or, if they went to trial, The investigator who analyzed the data looked to see whether pretrial confer whether the conferences shortened the amount of trial time. (This matters, because trial time is very expensive.) The investigator reported the main results as follows; tabular material is quoted from his report. (i) Pretrial conferences had no impact on settlement; the same percentage go to trial in group B as in group A + C. Percentage of cases reaching trial Group B Reached trial Number of cases Trial time (in hours) 1. 5 or less 2. 3. Over 10 Number of cases Comment briefly on the analysis. 22% 701 Over 5 to 10 (ii) Pretrial conferences do not shorten trial time; the percentage of short trials is highest in cases that refused pretrial conferences. 43% 35% 22% 63 Group A+ C Distribution of trial time among cases that go to trial Group B Group A Group C 23% 34% 41% 26% 176 2,079 28% 39% 33% 70 15. In some jurisdictions, there are "pretrial conterences, where the judge con before trial. Observational data suggest that pretrial conferences promote set fers with the opposing lawyers to settle the case or at least to define the issues In New Jersey courts, pretrial conferences were mandatory. However, an ex tements and speed up trials, but there were doubts. personal periment was done in 7 counties. During a six-month period, 2,954 p injury cases (mainly automobile accidents) were assigned at random to treat. made optional-either lawyer could request one. Among the treatment cases, remained mandatory. For the 1,459 treatment cases, the conferences were ment or control. For the 1,495 control cases (group A), pretrial conferences 701 opted for a pretrial conference (group C), and 758 did not (group B). ences encouraged cases to settle before reaching trial; or, if they went to trial, The investigator who analyzed the data looked to see whether pretrial confer whether the conferences shortened the amount of trial time. (This matters, because trial time is very expensive.) The investigator reported the main results as follows; tabular material is quoted from his report. (i) Pretrial conferences had no impact on settlement; the same percentage go to trial in group B as in group A + C. Percentage of cases reaching trial Group B Reached trial Number of cases Trial time (in hours) 1. 5 or less 2. 3. Over 10 Number of cases Comment briefly on the analysis. 22% 701 Over 5 to 10 (ii) Pretrial conferences do not shorten trial time; the percentage of short trials is highest in cases that refused pretrial conferences. 43% 35% 22% 63 Group A+ C Distribution of trial time among cases that go to trial Group B Group A Group C 23% 34% 41% 26% 176 2,079 28% 39% 33% 70

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The analysis suggests that in this experiment pretrial ... View the full answer