Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1996
Abstract
This Article reports on the performance of a study based on and inspired by Segal and Spaeth's work. It examines the possible attitudinal bases of the entire corpus (over 100 cases) of federal district court decisions involving constitutional self-representation claims. As explained in greater detail below, this area of jurisprudence was selected for study because decisions often are dependent upon the exercise of judicial discretion-Segal and Spaeth's attitudinal factors. This study both elucidates the attitudinal methods of Segal and Spaeth and "proves" an exception to the attitudinal model hypothesized by Segal and Spaeth. That exception is the salience of doctrine in the decisions of lower federal court judges who, unlike Supreme Court Justices, adjudicate cognizant of appellate reviewability. This Article first provides a brief elaboration of Segal and Spaeth's project and rebuts its principal critics. Next, it reviews the relevant features of self-representation jurisprudence. Then it details the study performed on that body of cases, including explanations of the sample and methodology, and concludes with a discussion and analysis of the results.
Recommended Citation
John R. Quinn, Attitudinal Decision Making in the Federal Courts: A Study of Constitutional Self-Representation Claims, 33 SAN DIEGO L. REV. 701 (SPRING 1996).
Source Publication
San Diego Law Review