Amicus curiae briefs and their effect on United States Supreme Court decisions involving rape convictions from 1950--1999

Amicus curiae influence has been one of numerous areas studied in an attempt to predict judicial behavior and Decision outcomes. While some studies have found support for amicus influence, other studies claim that amici have absolutely no impact on the decision making process. In this study, the impact of amicus briefs was examined in conjunction with three decision making models: (1) the Legal Model; (2) the Interest Group Model; and (3) the Attitudinal Model. Specifically, the study qualitatively and quantitatively reviewed ninety-one amicus briefs, filed in sixty-seven cases, involving convicted rapists from 1950 to 1999. United States Supreme Court (USSC) Decisions were also examined.;The study found marginal support for the Interest Group Model in that amici filers (individuals or entities listed on the first two pages of an amicus brief) influence the Court to some degree. Additionally, amicus briefs containing filers and new legal arguments, which lends marginal support for the Legal Model, also influence the decision making process.;Ultimately, the study found that the Attitudinal Model is the most influential model in the decision making process. The Attitudinal Model presupposes that Justices render Decisions based on personal preferences, individual biases, and political ideology. Justices rendering Decisions under the Attitudinal Model do not rely on amicus briefs when rendering their Decisions. The study showed the USSC decision making process is influenced by the collective political ideology (conservative or liberal) of the Court. As the Court's political ideology shifts from conservative to liberal, the probability that the Court will overturn the rapist's conviction increases. The converse is also true: an extremely conservative Court is more likely to uphold a rapist's original conviction.