To: Dr. Anne J. Matula
From: Ryan Flores, Fatima Zamarron, and Gina Villarreal
Date: October 17, 2012
Subject: Case #2, Hamilton County Judges

Introduction
In an effort to better evaluate the performances of the judges of Hamilton County, the Cincinnati Enquirer hired the firm of DLS to investigate the courts. DLS examined all cases disposed, appealed, and reversed in Common Pleas, Domestic Relations, and Municipal Courts over a three year period. The data provided to the investigators consisted of 182,908 cases handled (disposed) by 38 judges. The investigating team of DLS assessed rankings based on the performances of the judges.
Methodology
The investigators from DLS used the table provided to assist in the data analysis. Excel was the primary software used for the case. Tables were formed to show the probabilities of appealed and reversed cases. The tables included information from all three courts and provided probabilities of reversed cases, appealed cases, and reversed given appealed cases. Tables and bar charts were used to designate the rankings of the judges’ performances. The bar charts contained data of the probability of appealed or reversed cases.
Results
From the data collected (see Appendix A, Table 1) analysis was conducted. The judges were each given a probability of cases appealed, reversed, and reversed given appealed. The judges were then ranked based on the probabilities in the different courts. Table 1.2 covers the Common Pleas Court and in this table the team of DLS provides the ranking of each judge based on the probability of cases appealed and reversed. The highest ranked judge by probability of appealed cases was J. Howard Sundermann and the lowest ranked was Ralph Winkler. For probability of reversed cases the highest ranked was J. Howard Sundermann and the lowest ranked was Ralph Winkler. In the reversed given