JUSTICES RESPONSES TO CASE FACTS - AN INTERACTIVE MODEL

In this study we evaluate the generalizability of the attitudinal mode l as explicated in the United States Supreme Court by assessing the ex tent to which state supreme court justices' responses to case facts ar e conditioned not only by their ideological preferences but also by th e political environments within which the cases are heard. Using probi t analysis, we examine the votes of supreme court justices in eight st ates (Arizona, California, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, North Caroli na, Ohio, and Texas) from 1983 through 1988 in the death penalty decis ions issued by these courts. We find that justices do not respond unif ormly to certain case facts when deciding between sentences of life or death for defendants convicted of capital crimes. Instead, justices' responses to case facts vary according to their individual partisan pr eferences and the ideological climates within which they operate. In o ther words, contextual forces are important direct and indirect influe nces on judicial behavior, and the attitudinal model must be modified for application to other courts. To formulate a singular theory of jud icial choice necessitates an appreciation for the importance of courts ' external operating environments as significant influences on judicia l choice. Through comparative research designs and models that include microlevel and macrolevel forces (including political context), schol ars will be able to build models that transcend particular judicial in stitutions and that better represent the complexity of the judicial ca lculus.