Perceptions of Auditor Negligence: The Effects of Big Data Visualisations on Jurors’ Decisions

<p>This study analyses the effects of Big Data visualisations on jurors’ decisions in audit litigation cases. Specifically, the study investigates the effects of different types of Big Data visualisations (word clouds or bar graphs) and different sources of Big Data (emails or social media posts) on jurors’ perceptions of auditors’ work and the size of the negligence awards that jurors recommend. The study theorises that the emotions elicited and the reliability of the data used to create visualisations such as word clouds will have dramatic effects on jury verdicts in audit negligence trials. There is considerable literature to support this assertion. However, after data collection, it was discovered that jurors are not influenced by the emotions elicited by visualisations. Rather, participants were very sceptical of more novel types of visualisations, such as word clouds, but could be persuaded by the inherent emotions elicited and the reliability of the data if they found the visualisation useful.</p>

Perceptions of Auditor Negligence: The Effects of Big Data Visualisations on Jurors’ Decisions

<p>This study analyses the effects of Big Data visualisations on jurors’ decisions in audit litigation cases. Specifically, the study investigates the effects of different types of Big Data visualisations (word clouds or bar graphs) and different sources of Big Data (emails or social media posts) on jurors’ perceptions of auditors’ work and the size of the negligence awards that jurors recommend. The study theorises that the emotions elicited and the reliability of the data used to create visualisations such as word clouds will have dramatic effects on jury verdicts in audit negligence trials. There is considerable literature to support this assertion. However, after data collection, it was discovered that jurors are not influenced by the emotions elicited by visualisations. Rather, participants were very sceptical of more novel types of visualisations, such as word clouds, but could be persuaded by the inherent emotions elicited and the reliability of the data if they found the visualisation useful.</p>

Reforming the jury in Russia

The article examines the development of jury courts in Russia, the stages of their reform from the emergence during the reform period of 1864 to the present. The statistical indicators of jury cases considered by the courts are analyzed. The problem of excessive emotionality of jury verdicts is raised. The ways of solving the current situation within the framework of the development of the institution of jury in the Russian Federation are proposed.

The good character ‘backstop’: directions, defeasibility and frameworks of fairness

This paper examines the law on good character evidence in criminal trials through a discussion of the important but under-analysed case of Hunter, in which a five-judge Court of Appeal sought to clarify the law on good character directions to the jury. However, it is argued here that the judgment conflicts with the leading House of Lords decision in Aziz. The paper considers how the court misinterpreted the law and, in particular, the defeasible nature of the rule in Aziz and the impact of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. As a result, the circumstances in which a good character direction will be provided have diminished significantly. It is argued that this has important implications for the right to a fair trial, as good character directions act as a ‘backstop’ against miscarriages of justice. They also form a vital part of the ‘framework of fairness’ considered necessary, in lieu of reasoned jury verdicts, by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in Taxquet v Belgium. Accordingly, it is contended that Aziz rather than Hunter should be followed so that, where there is evidence of good character, a direction is normally provided as a matter of law.

Descriptive Analysis of Federal and State Interventional Pain Malpractice Litigation in the United States: A Pilot Investigation

Background: The aim of this study was to examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. Objectives: To examine and appreciate characteristics of malpractice lawsuits brought against interventional pain specialists. Study Design: Retrospective review. Setting: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Methods: Jury verdicts and settlement reports of state and federal malpractice cases involving interventional pain practitioners from January 1, 1988, to January 1, 2018 were gathered from the Westlaw online legal database. Data collected for each case included year, state, patient age, patient gender, defendant specialty, legal outcome, award amount, alleged cause of malpractice, and factors in plaintiff’s decision to file. After elimination of duplicates and applying inclusion/ exclusion criteria to our initial search yielding over 1,500 cases, a total of 82 cases were included in this study. Results: A total of 57.3% of cases resulted in a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, whereas 41.5% favored the plaintiff. When comparing cases that were performed in the operating room to cases performed outside the operating room, we found the jury verdicts to favor the plaintiff 83.3% of the time for operating room procedures (P = 0.003). In other words, interventional pain practitioners were more likely to be found at fault for complications from procedures performed in the operating room. To eliminate confounders, a logistical regression was performed and confirmed operating room procedures were an independent predictor of a verdict awarded to the plaintiff (P = 0.008). The median amount awarded to the plaintiff for all cases was $333,000, and the single highest award amount was $36,636,288. The median payout for operating room procedures was $450,000 (P = 0.010), which was significantly different from the median payout for nonoperating room procedures. Procedure categorization demonstrated a statistically significant difference in jury verdicts (P = 0.01411) and procedural error was the leading reason for pursuing litigation, followed by lack of informed consent and unnecessary procedure performed. Limitations: There is more than one database that captures medicolegal claims brought against practitioners. Westlaw, which has been previously utilized by other studies, is only one of them and the extent to which overlap exists in unclear. For each, data input are not necessarily consistent and data capture are not complete. As a result, there could exist a skew toward more severe complications and the details of individual cases likely vary. During data extraction, we found that all details of the procedure were not always included. For example, not all cases specified the type of injectate utilized for epidural injection (i.e., local anesthetic, steroid, mixture, and others) or route of injection (i.e., transforaminal vs. interlaminar). Moreover, as previously mentioned, cases that are settled out of court or finalized prior to trial are not necessarily reported by the Westlaw database, and therefore were not always included in our data search. Conclusions: Overall, interventional pain medicine physicians were favored by jury verdicts for malpractice claims. However, when filtering by procedure or setting, jury verdicts favored the plaintiff in some cases. Key words: Interventional pain, medical, malpractice, anesthesiology

An analysis of malpractice litigation in the surgical management of carotid artery disease

OBJECTIVECarotid artery disease is a common illness that can pose a significant risk if left untreated. Treatment via carotid endarterectomy (CEA) or carotid artery stenting (CAS) can also lead to complications. Given the risk of adverse events related to treating, or failing to treat, carotid artery disease, this is a possible area for litigation. The aim of this review is to provide an overview of the medicolegal factors involved in treating patients suffering carotid artery disease and to compare litigation related to CEA and CAS.METHODSThree large legal databases were used to search for jury verdicts and settlements in cases related to untreated carotid artery disease, CEA, and CAS. Search terms included “endarterectomy,” “medical malpractice,” “carotid,” “stenosis,” “stenting,” “stent,” and combinations of those words. Three types of cases were considered relevant: 1) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CEA or perioperative care (CEA-related cases); 2) cases in which the primary allegation was negligence performing a CAS or perioperative care (CAS-related cases); and 3) cases in which the plaintiff alleged that a CEA or CAS should have been performed (failure-to-treat [FTT] cases).RESULTSOne hundred fifty-four CEA-related cases, 3 CAS-related cases, and 67 FTT cases were identified. Cases resulted in 133 verdicts for the defense (59%), 64 settlements (29%), and 27 plaintiff verdicts (12%). The average payout in cases that were settled outside of court was $1,097,430 and the average payout in cases that went to trial and resulted in a plaintiff verdict was $2,438,253. Common allegations included a failure to diagnose and treat carotid artery disease in a timely manner, treating with inappropriate indications, procedural error, negligent postprocedural management, and lack of informed consent. Allegations of a failure to timely treat known carotid artery disease were likely to lead to a payout (60% of cases involved a payout). Allegations of procedural error, specifically where the resultant injury was nerve injury, were relatively less likely to lead to a payout (28% of cases involved a payout).CONCLUSIONSBoth diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease has serious medicolegal implications and risks. In cases resulting in a plaintiff verdict, the payouts were significantly higher than cases resolved outside the courtroom. Knowledge of common allegations in diagnosing and treating carotid artery disease as well as performing CEA and CAS may benefit neurosurgeons. The lack of CAS-related litigation suggests these procedures may entail a lower risk of litigation compared to CEA, even accounting for the difference in the frequency of both procedures.

Combatting Bias in the Criminal Courts of France, 1870s-1913

In nineteenth-century France, liberals assumed that a conservative judiciary was frequently biased in favour of the prosecution, and socialists assumed that juries were dominated by the upper classes and too unrepresentative of the population to render justice equitably. Agitation by the left to combat these perceived biases led to the adoption of two key reforms of the fin de siècle. One was the abolition in 1881 of the résumé, or summing-up of the case by the chief justice of the cour d’assises (felony court). Liberals thought this reform was necessary because judges allegedly often used the résumé to persuade jurors in favour of conviction, a charge repeated by modern historians. The other reform, beginning at about the same time, was to make jury composition more democratic. By 1880, newly empowered liberals (at least in Paris) had begun to reduce the proportion of wealthy men on jury lists. This was followed in 1908 by the implementation of a circular issued by the Minister of Justice ordering the jury commissions to inscribe working-class men on the annual jury lists. However, a quantitative analysis of jury verdicts suggests that the reforms of the early 1880s and 1908 had only modest impacts on jury verdicts. Ideas and attitudes seem to have been more important. This has implications regarding two key controversies among modern jurists: the extent to which judges influence jurors and the extent to which the characteristics of jurors influence their verdicts.

The Many Faces of Federal Court Deference

US federal courts identify many of their doctrines and activities as acts of deference. This book uses those identifications as the raw material for its inductively derived definition of and framework for deference. Doctrines and practices identified as deference arise in connection with appellate review of findings of fact of legislative, executive, and judicial bodies (including juries); review of legal findings of those bodies; review of policymaking, or discretionary, judgments of those bodies; and review of (or refusals to review) actions of state courts. The scope of deference ranges from total (abstention or absence of review) or near-total (rational basis review of legislative action or jury verdicts) to minimal (so-called Skidmore deference, under which agency legal interpretations receive whatever weight they merit all things considered). Many of the same considerations noted by federal courts appear in legal contexts outside the United States, such as the margin of appreciation doctrine employed by some international tribunals and Wednesbury review in the United Kingdom. This chapter seeks to identify enough instances of deference to allow generalizations about the nature, scope, and reasons for deference that are developed in subsequent chapters.