Hoffman 9515483 This study draws upon the empirical research about judicial behavior and criminal courts, and the distinctive legal, normative, and situational context of capital cases, to examine how the decisions, rulings, and interpretive practices of trial judges are affected by their backgrounds, values, and role orientations, the courthouse and community settings of their work, and their response to distinctive features of capital cases, such as their perception of the likelihood of federal habeas reversal, state statutory sentencing provisions, the implications of death as punishment, the effects of heightened publicity, and the capital case experience and perspectives of other judges. By examining how trial judges discharge their constitutional responsibility in capital cases, this study will seek to contribute to the development of an empirically grounded understanding of trial judging. It uses a case-focused interviews with a sample of 60 trial judges who have presided over a full capital trial within a year of the interview to (a) describe the actions and interpretive practices of capital trial judges and the rationales they give for their decisions, (b) assess legal and normative influences on uniformity of practice among capital trial judges, and (c) assess individual and contextual sources of variation in capital trial judging by judge, by court and by case characteristics. %%%% This study draws upon the empirical research about judicial behavior and criminal courts, and the distinctive legal, normative, and situational context of capital cases, to examine how the decisions, rulings, and interpretive practices of trial judges are affected by their backgrounds, values, and role orientations, the courthouse and community settings of their work, and their response to distinctive features of capital cases, such as their perception of the likelihood of federal habeas reversal, state statutory sentencing provisions, the implications of death as punishment, the effects of heightened publicity, and the capital case experience and perspectives of other judges. By examining how trial judges discharge their constitutional responsibility in capital cases, this study will seek to contribute to the development of an empirically grounded understanding of trial judging. It uses a case-focused interviews with a sample of 60 trial judges who have presided over a full capital trial within a year of the interview to (a) describe the actions and interpretive practices of capital trial judges and the rationales they give for their decisions, (b) assess legal and normative influences on uniformity of practice among capital trial judges, and (c) assess individual and contextual sources of variation in capital trial judging by judge, by court and by case characteristics. ****
