You are here
Reports & Studies
Below is a list of a number of past published studies conducted by the Research Division. Some Center reports are not published or made publicly available due to restrictions in place from the source of the research request. Most research reports can be downloaded and in some instances, a hardcopy publication can be requested. See also Manuals, Monographs, & Guides.
Displaying 321 - 330 of 345|
Title |
Date |
|---|---|
|
The Second Circuit Sentencing Study: A Report to the Judges of the Second Circuit The report on a sentencing experiment that revealed substantial disparity in determining both the need for incarceration and the lengths of prison terms to be imposed. Matters of disparity and the effects of particular case characteristics are discussed. |
January 1, 1974 |
|
The Timing of Scheduling Orders and Discovery Cut-Off Dates The Judicial Conference Advisory Committee on Civil Rules asked the Federal Judicial Center to study the operation of Rules 16 and 26(f) in the district courts. This report summarizes findings of part of that study. Specifically, this report examines the timing of Rule 16 scheduling orders in civil cases and, drawing from those scheduling orders, also examines the timing of the first discovery cut-off date imposed, without regard to any extension. The data analyzed in this report were drawn from court records in 11 districts. |
October 1, 2011 |
|
The U.S. Sentencing Guidelines: Results of the Federal Judicial Center's 1996 Survey-Report to the Committee on Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States Report on a survey that the Center undertook at the request of the Committee on Criminal Law of the Judicial Conference of the United States of all district and circuit judges and chief probation officers regarding their experiences with and views of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Overall, responses did not reflect a groundswell of support for major overhaul of the Sentencing Guidelines. In general, chief probation officers were less supportive of change to the current guideline sentencing system than were judges. |
January 1, 1997 |
|
The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. Bankruptcy Courts: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration & Case Management At the request of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study of the use of courtrooms in the U.S. bankruptcy courts. The study, which was conducted from mid-2008 to late 2010, followed completion of a similar study of courtroom use in the federal district courts, see The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. District Courts (2008). Findings reported in the study are based on data collected in nine bankruptcy courts from September 14, 2009, through December 14, 2009, and in nine other bankruptcy courts from January 18, 2010, through April 16, 2010. Note: Technical appendices 2 and 6 are forthcoming. |
December 17, 2010 |
|
The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. District Courts: A Report to the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration & Case Management At the request of the Judicial Conference Committee on Court Administration and Case Management, the Federal Judicial Center conducted a study of the use of courtrooms in the U.S. district courts. The committee requested the study in response to a November 2005 congressional subcommittee request for an empirical study of the use of federal courtrooms. The study was conducted between early 2006 and spring 2008, with data collected in twenty-six district courts during the period January 15 - July 15, 2007. For a subsequent report on bankruptcy courtroom use, see The Use of Courtrooms in U.S. Bankruptcy Courts (2010). |
January 1, 2008 |
|
The Voir Dire Examination, Juror Challenges, and Adversary Advocacy A broad review of the legal and psychological issues presented by the voir dire examination and subsequent challenges of prospective jurors. The discussion is organized under four headings: interests, criteria, parameters, and methodology. An edited version of the paper is contained in The Trial Process (B. D. Sales ed., Plenum 1981). |
January 1, 1978 |
|
Third Report Pursuant to Section 202(e) of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act Pub. L. No. 111-203 (2010) In response to the global economic turmoil that began in late 2007, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Act) introduced a broad array of regulatory reforms in the financial sector. This report focuses on the reforms in Title II of the Act, which are intended to mitigate risks posed by the failure of systemically important financial institutions. Title II directs the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) to study the resolution of these institutions and report on its findings. The AOUSC submitted its first report pursuant to section 202(e) of the Act on July 21, 2011 (First Report), and its second report on July 17, 2012 (Second Report). The AOUSC now submits this third report in compliance with section 202(e). This report to Congress was prepared with the assistance of the Federal Judicial Center. |
July 1, 2013 |
|
Time Trends in the Earnings of Attorneys: Preliminary Report - |
January 1, 1978 |
|
Trade Secret Seizure Best Practices Under the Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 The Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016 (DTSA), Pub. L. No. 114-153, became law on May 11, 2016. It amends 18 U.S.C. § 1836 to create a private right of action for the misappropriation of trade secrets “for which any act occurs on or after the date of the enactment” and where the trade secrets “[are] related to [] product[s] or service[s] used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” The DTSA directs that, not later than two years after the date of enactment of the Act, the Federal Judicial Center, "using existing resources, shall develop recommended best practices for (1) the seizure of information and media storing the information; and (2) the securing of the information and media once seized." These trade secret seizure best practices were developed in response to the DTSA’s mandate and are based on the limited initial experience in the federal courts with 18 U.S.C. § 1836(b)(2). They are being circulated prior to the due date of May 11, 2018, so that courts can benefit from having early guidance on the subject matter. The Center will update these best practices as needed. |
June 28, 2017 |
|
Treatment of Brady v. Maryland Material in United States District and State Courts' Rules, Orders, and Policies The Center prepared this report at the request of the Advisory Committee on Criminal Rules as it considers whether to propose amendments to Rules 11 and 16 to codify the disclosure requirements in Brady v. Maryland. The committee wanted to know whether federal district courts and state courts have adopted formal rules or standards that provide prosecutors with specific guidance on discharging their Brady obligations. This report describes the federal district court local rules, orders, and policies that address Brady material, and the treatment of Brady material in state statutes and in court rules and policies. For an update to this report see Brady v. Maryland Material in the United States District Courts: Rules, Orders, and Policies (2007). |
October 1, 2004 |
