Question

The Discussion Question is Hamilton County judges try thousands of cases per year In an overwhelming majority of the cases disposed, the verdict stands as rendered However, some cases are appealed, some of the cases are reversed. The Enquirer conducted a study of cases handled by Hamilton County judges over a three- year period. Shown in the below links are the results for 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Muniipal Court. Two of the judges (Dinkelacker and Hogan) did not serve in the same court for the entire three-year period Common Pleas Court Domestic Relations Court .Municipal Court The purpose of the newspaper's study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. Appeals are often the result of mistakes made by judges, and the newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a good job and which were making too many mistakes You are called in to assist in the data analysis. Use your knowledge of probability to help with the ranking of the judges. You also may be able to analyze the lkeithood of appeal and reversal for cases handled by dilferont courts Prepare a report with your rankings of the judges lso,include an analysis of the lhelhood of appeal and case reversal i the three courts At a minmum, you rmpo should include the rank of the judges within each court. State the criteria you used and provide a rationale for your choice . Which court shows a better quality

Answer 1

Table (a): Common Pleas Court

Judge	P(Appealed Cases)	P(Reversed Cases)	P(Reversed | Appealed)	Rank
Fred Cartolano	0.0451	0.0040	0.0876	3
Thomas Crush	0.0353	0.0030	0.0840	13
Patrick Dinkelacker	0.0350	0.0064	0.1818	14
Timothy Hogan	0.0307	0.0036	0.1167	15
Robert Kraft	0.0405	0.0022	0.0551	2
William MatheWs	0.0402	0.0080	0.1978	10
William Morrissey	0.0399	0.0073	0.1818	11
Norbert Nadel	0.0443	0.0068	0.1527	4
Arthur Ney, Jr.	0.0388	0.0043	0.1120	12
Richard Niehaus	0.0409	0.0048	0.1168	6
Thomas Nurre	0.0403	0.0020	0.0496	13
John O’Connor	0.0434	0.0040	0.0930	5
Robert Ruehlman	0.0452	0.0056	0.1241	7
J. HoWard Sundermann	0.0628	0.0105	0.1667	1
Ann Marie Tracey	0.0404	0.0041	0.1024	8
Ralph Winkler	0.0285	0.0019	0.0682	16
Total	0.0401	0.0045	0.1129

• Table (b): Domestic Relations Court

Judge	P(Appealed Cases)	P(Reversed Cases)	P(Reversed | Appealed)	Rank
Penelope Cunningham	0.0026	0.0004	0.1429	3
Patrick Dinkelacker	0.0032	0.0007	0.2105	2
Deborah Gaines	0.0055	0.0010	0.1875	1
Ronald Panioto	0.0025	0.0002	0.0938	4
Total	0.0035	0.0006	0.1604

• Table (c): Municipal Court

Judge	P(Appealed Cases)	P(Reversed Cases)	P(Reversed | Appealed)	Rank
Mike Allen	0.0070	0.0007	0.0930	1
Nadine Allen	0.0044	0.0008	0.1765	12
Timothy Black	0.0052	0.0008	0.1463	4
David Davis	0.0056	0.0006	0.1163	6
Leslie Isaiah Gaines	0.0066	0.0025	0.3714	2
Karla Grady	0.0011	0.0000	0.0000	20
Deidra Hair	0.0020	0.0000	0.0000	18
Dennis Helmick	0.0037	0.0006	0.1724	15
Timothy Hogan	0.0056	0.0009	0.1538	4
James Patrick Kenney	0.0021	0.0004	0.1667	17
Joseph Luebbers	0.0053	0.0017	0.3200	7
William Mallory	0.0046	0.0011	0.2368	10
Melba Marsh	0.0041	0.0009	0.2059	13
Beth Mattingly	0.0044	0.0003	0.0769	11
Albert Mestemaker	0.0056	0.0018	0.3214	5
Mark Painter	0.0031	0.0013	0.4286	16
Jack Rosen	0.0053	0.0017	0.3171	8
Mark SchWeikert	0.0061	0.0011	0.1818	3
David Stockdale	0.0041	0.0007	0.1818	6
John A. West	0.0014	0.0007	0.5000	19
Total	0.0046	0.0010	0.2080