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.

1. The probability of cases being appealed in each of the three different courts.
2. The probability of cases being reversed in each of the three different courts.
3. The probability of cases being reversed given an appeal in each of the three different courts.
4. The probability of a case being appealed for each judge.
5. The probability of a case being reversed for each judge.
6. The probability of reversal, given an appeal for each judge.
7. 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.