17
relationship between litigant resources and court outcomes does not necessarily exist, since
defendants represented by appointed counsel were neither more nor less likely to have their
sentence of death affirmed.
The way by which the leave to appeal to the Appellate Division was granted also does not
seem to have influenced the Court’s decisions. Theoretically, it makes sense that the Court would
have been more likely to overturn the sentence of death in cases in which it granted the leave to
appeal. But the insignificance of the coefficients of both ADGRANT and TRIAL does not
provide evidence for this assumption, since there appears to be no systematic relationship
between the form of leave granted and the death penalty decisions of the Court.
The results also indicate that the extralegal case facts within the baseline model—with the
possible exception of race—are not significant predictors of the Appellate Division’s decisions.
For instance, it was posited that the Court would be more likely to affirm the sentence when the
defendant was male, based upon the notion that judges often tend to treat female defendants more
leniently than their male counterparts. Despite its correct positive direction, the insignificance of
the DEFMALE coefficient demonstrates that the judges of the Appellate Division were neither
more nor less likely to affirm the sentence of death for either male or female defendants.
It also appears that the Court did not rely upon the victims’ characteristics. It was suggested
that females and children were considered the most vulnerable within society, leading to the
hypothesis that the death penalty would be considered more appropriate in cases involving these
types of victims. The findings do not support this suggestion, however, as is evidenced by the
insignificant coefficients of both the VICFEML and VICMALE variables.
On the other hand, there does appear to be some sort of link between the panels’ ideology and
the sentencing outcomes of the Appellate Division. It was posited that liberal panels, or those
most committed to upholding the civil rights and liberties of criminal defendants, would be more
Convention