Ideological divisiveness in criminal procedure cases: Measuring variability in U.S. Supreme Court outcomes

Limited scholarly attention has been devoted to an understanding of ideology in criminal procedure cases decided by appellate courts. This study focuses on U.S. Supreme Court outcomes and develops a measurement of ideological divisiveness in the voting patterns of the justices for the decisions announced for the 1994-2014 terms of the Court. The analysis approaches the issue of ideological divisiveness in voting patterns through development of a Case Ideology Divisiveness score that is a weighted measure of vote divisiveness (the average justice deviation from the majority opinion) and depth of divisiveness (the number of unique concurring and dissenting opinions filed). The score is reported for criminal procedure, civil rights, First Amendment, and due process cases. The analysis then examines the score for 16 categories of criminal procedure case types and reports mean comparison data. Trends and implications are discussed.