Jackson County Judges

Jackson County Judges
Jackson 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, and of those appealed, some of the cases are reversed. Jackie Chan of The Star Tribune conducted a study of cases handled by Jackson

County judges over a three-year period. In the Excel file, Judges, linked at the bottom of the page, are the results for the 182,908 cases handled

(disposed) by 40 judges in Common Pleas Court, Domestic Relations Court, and Municipal Court.

The purpose of the newspaper’s study was to evaluate the performance of the judges. The newspaper wanted to know which judges were doing a good job and

which ones were making too many mistakes. You are to assist in the data analysis by using your knowledge of probability and conditional probability to help

with the ranking of each of the judges, as well as each court.

Managerial Report
Prepare a report (see below) with your ranking of the judges based on the probabilities and conditional probabilities, as well as the analysis of each

court. Include the following seven (7) items in table format to support your ranking. Be sure to use five (5) decimal places for your probabilities in the

table, as some of them will be quite small.

The probability of cases being appealed in each of the three different courts.
The probability of cases being reversed in each of the three different courts.
The probability of cases being reversed given an appeal in each of the three different courts.
The probability of a case being appealed for each judge.
The probability of a case being reversed for each judge.
The probability of reversal, given an appeal for each judge.
Rank the judges within each court for each of the probabilities in 4 – 6. In other words, only rank the judges in the Common Pleas court against the other

judges in the Common Pleas court. perfrom the same analysis for the other two courts. Then, within each court, find the sum of the ranks and get an overall

ranking for each judge. Evaluate and discuss the meaning of your results. Use tables, charts, graphs, or visual dashboards to support your findings.

As with all written assignments at CSU-Global, you should have in-text citations and a reference page.
Your report must contain the following:

A title page in APA style.
An introduction that summarizes the problem.
The body of the paper should answer the questions posed in the problem by communicating the results of your analysis. Include results of calculations, as

well as charts and graphs, where appropriate.
A conclusion paragraph that addresses your findings and what you have determined from the data and your analysis.

Court Judge Disposed Appealed Reversed P(Appeal) Rank by P(A) P(Reversal) Rank by P(R) P(R|A) Rank by P(R|A) Sum

of Ranks Overall Rank
Common Pleas Peter Tom 2715 123 12
Angela M. Mazzarelli 2570 132 12
Richard T. Andrias 1467 53 1
David Friedman 1982 33 2
John W. Sweeny Jr. 3124 154 5
Rolando T. Acosta 2714 132 14
David B. Saxe 3326 53 8
Karla Moskowitz 3353 163 1
Dianne T. Renwick 2695 121 12
Leland G. DeGrasse 2706 86 5
Helen E. Freedman 3001 152 7
Rosalyn H. Richter 2556 56 12
Sallie Manzanet-Daniels 3265 174 14
Paul G. Feinman 2402 76 43
Judith J. Gische 2947 145 27
Darcel D. Clark 3122 109 24
Total

Domestic Relations John A. Lahtinen 4532 21 2
Leslie E. Stein 12032 12 5
William E. McCarthy 4321 31 7
Edward O. Spain 9614 42 3
Total

Municipal Elizabeth A. Garry 4512 32 6
John C. Egan Jr. 5895 35 3
Peter Tom 4947 75 1
Angela M. Mazzarelli 11443 2 1
Richard T. Andrias 8054 43 23
David Friedman 7645 6 5
John W. Sweeny Jr. 2643 33 12
Rolando T. Acosta 8964 63 5
David B. Saxe 2672 75 2
Karla Moskowitz 2321 12 8
Dianne T. Renwick 4675 1 0
Leland G. DeGrasse 6567 5 4
Helen E. Freedman 6543 34 8
Rosalyn H. Richter 2910 21 3
Sallie Manzanet-Daniels 4567 4 4
Paul G. Feinman 1903 6 3
Judith J. Gische 7823 4 1
Darcel D. Clark 3455 15 3
Luis A. Gonzalez 8905 25 4
Leslie E. Stein 2020 9 8
Total