Judge Chutkan’s Opinions

Ideas for analyzing the Jan. 6 Trump case judge

If you are feeling swamped trying to keep up with all the legal battles involving former president Donald J. Trump, you’re in good company. Let’s zoom in on the Jan. 6 case where Trump has been charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S. government and allegedly trying to block the January 6, 2021, election certification. The narrative goes: after his election defeat, Trump dished out misinformation aiming to foster doubt and anger, all to cling to power.

This legal drama unfolds in the District of Columbia federal district court with Hon. Tanya Chutkan holding the gavel. The media has been digging into Chutkan’s background, probably hoping to predict how the case might pan out for Trump. If you’re curious, you can check out these articles: here and here. I’ll provide a summary presently. But today’s main focus, and my addition to the discussion, is to set the stage for exploration of Chutkan’s written opinions on criminal cases.

Democracy and social justice

I write about data and social justice, so you might reasonably wonder what Jan. 6 has to do with social justice. The answer: a lot. Social justice is rooted in fairness and equity for all, and democracy serves as its bedrock. Democracy promises representation and accountability, giving voice to the marginalized. When a leader tries to undermine an election, they’re not just challenging democratic norms but directly assaulting social justice. Such actions mute people’s voices, threaten equity, and can lead to a disproportionate concentration of power, deepening societal divisions. In short, a compromised democracy jeopardizes the very pursuit of social justice.

What we already know

Judge Chutkan has a history with Trump, previously rejecting his bid to prevent records from reaching the Jan. 6 committee, stating, “Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not president.”

Born in Jamaica, Chutkan studied economics at George Washington University and law at the University of Pennsylvania. She served at the District of Columbia Public Defender Service for over a decade, followed by a 12-year tenure specializing in litigation at Boies, Schiller, & Flexner LLP. In 2014, President Obama appointed her to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Judge Chutkan has frequently imposed stricter sentences on Jan. 6 defendants than those recommended by the Justice Department, emphasizing the need for accountability for the insurrection. For instance, she sentenced two participants to 45 days in jail, exceeding the prosecution’s 30-day recommendation. Chutkan emphasizes that consequences for such actions should be more than just “sitting at home.”

Why we’re not going to study sentencing

While there has been considerable media focus on Judge Chutkan’s decisions regarding the Jan. 6 cases, it prompts us to question: what are her broader sentencing tendencies? This is tough to answer. Here’s why.

In the U.S., the Supreme Court unambiguously upheld the public’s right to access court proceedings in the case of Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia. This verdict emphasized that the First Amendment safeguards against the government shutting off courtroom access arbitrarily. But even with this right in place, it’s unrealistic for most of us to sit through endless federal proceedings and gather data in real time. Thankfully, the U.S. government does provide a wealth of data on federal criminal sentencing. The catch? The released data omits the names of the presiding judges, making it hard to analyze judge-specific sentencing trends. Because of this, in my past research, collaborators and I have gone to fairly ridiculous lengths to re-identify judges within the federal sentencing database. We managed to pin down around 600,000 criminal sentences, but unfortunately, Judge Chutkan’s records weren’t among them (for technical reasons unrelated to the judge herself).

Judicial opinions

Judicial opinions are written explanations provided by a judge detailing the reasoning behind a particular decision in a case. In criminal proceedings, these decisions can span a range of issues, from the interpretation of laws and the constitutionality of police conduct to evidentiary matters. An integral part of these proceedings are motions, which are formal requests by either the prosecution or defense, asking the judge to make a specific decision or action, such as excluding certain evidence from the trial. When ruling on these motions, especially if they’re complex or of significant consequence, a judge might provide a written opinion. While not every ruling is accompanied by an opinion, they’re often authored in situations where the legal reasoning is intricate, a legal precedent is being established or clarified, or the judge believes clarity is needed for the public or potential appeals. Essentially, judicial opinions offer a behind-the-scenes look into a judge’s thought process, illuminating why they arrived at a specific ruling.

Data: Chutkan’s opinions

To study Chutkan’s opinions, I searched the FreeLaw Project’s database of judicial opinions. Anyone interested in the judiciary should know about the amazing FreeLaw Project, a non-profit initiative dedicated to promoting transparency in the legal system. Launched in 2013, it offers tools like CourtListener for free legal research and the RECAP Archive to provide public access to court documents. By harnessing open-source platforms and advocating for open access, it seeks to democratize legal information, ensuring that crucial legal materials are accessible to all without prohibitive costs.

FreeLaw contains around 670 opinions issued by Judge Chutkan, but only 23 of these are in criminal proceedings. This makes sense, because in federal district courts the vast majority of cases are civil. Let’s look at these, recognizing that examination of 23 opinions is a small-data project, not a big-data project.

The 23 opinions pertain to 20 different cases, each with a unique defendant. For each opinion, below, I’ve provided the relevant case number, the year the opinion was issued, the name of the defendant, and a summary of the outcome of the motion.

Note: These summaries above are based on my reading of the opinions and I am not a lawyer! So take it with a grain of salt. Regardless, for anyone who is interested, I have this information available as a data file along with the full text of the opinions (again, courtesy of FreeLaw). Contact me and I’ll be happy to provide it to you.

Ideas for analysis

Analyzing a judge’s written opinions on criminal case motions can offer profound insights, and with the help of Natural Language Processing (NLP), we can adopt an intensively data-driven approach. NLP is a set of computational tools for analyzing language, and if you want, you can read about how these tools are applied to the law and to legal systems. Here are my own ideas for some NLP approaches that are relevant to analyzing judicial opinions:

1. Sentiment Analysis: This technique gauges the tone of a judge’s opinion. Does it come across as positive, negative, or neutral? This can hint at a judge’s feelings towards particular arguments or issues.
2. Topic Modeling: Here, we identify main topics or themes discussed in a judge’s opinions. This provides a snapshot of recurring subjects or areas the judge frequently addresses.
3. Named Entity Recognition: This method spots and categorizes elements like names of people, organizations, or legal references. It can help us discern the key players or influences in a judge’s deliberations.
4. Text Summarization: If you’re pressed for time, this tool offers a quick recap. Instead of sifting through a lengthy opinion, you get its essence in a few concise paragraphs.
5. Keyword Extraction: By pinpointing and ranking crucial words, we can determine which legal principles or terms a judge emphasizes most.
6. Document Clustering: This approach groups opinions that are similar in content or theme. It can help identify patterns, showing which types of cases or legal issues the judge has frequently encountered or how they approach different categories of cases.

I’m not going to do these in this brief post. This is a Medium post, people, not a research journal.

In closing

Undermining democratic norms, especially through efforts to challenge an election’s legitimacy, directly impacts the foundations of social justice. Judge Chutkan’s legal decisions can greatly influence the outcome of such matters. While getting a comprehensive understanding of her sentencing and ruling tendencies remains a challenge due to data constraints, her written opinions can offer us deep insights into her thought process.

Since Data4Justice is an interactive platform, let’s be interactive!

• Contact me if you want the small data set with Judge Chutkan’s written opinions in criminal cases.
• Share your perspective on the Jan. 6 case and Judge Chutkan’s role in the chat.
• Share this analysis with your network.

Together, let’s foster a data-driven dialogue around pivotal moments in our democracy.

Your neighbor,

Chad