Consider this:
"Collectively, these results suggest that judges tended to favor intuitive rather than deliberative faculties. First, the judges had trouble with the CRT (the test), even though the CRT questions are not difficult. Most of the judges answered most of the questions wrong. Second, when judges erred, they generally chose the intuitive answer. Third, those judges who selected the intuitive (wrong) answer indicated the problem was easier than those judges who suppressed their intuition and provided a deliberative answer (and got it right.)"
From C. Guthrie, J. Rachlinski, A. Wistrich, "Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases." Cornell Law Review. (Link provided above.)
(Take a look at the test questions yourself, and you will see they only required a moment to see that the most obvious, knee-jerk, superficial answer was wrong, and to then figure out the correct answer.)
This is a great topic, and I'm big-time glossing over the quite interesting debate regarding intuition versus deliberation. Also, what about the effect of fatigue, competence, personal problems, time limitations, administrative pressure, etc., that can also affect a judge? The truth is wrong decisions often are made despite the facts and have important real world consequences. Of course, no one wants to make a mistake but not wanting to doesn't change anything.
A couple posts ago, I mentioned the number of new filings in Douglas County, and encouraged you to consider the caseload of each individual judge. Safe to say trial involves significant risks, huh.
There is a relationship between Gladwell, a judge's caseload, and the article's study results - maybe stronger than some of us might have otherwise thought. If you dig around, every family lawyer would have a story to tell that reveals this relationship - I have a few.
(I personally made a snap judgment about Gladwell's book and consequently have not read it yet. I'm reconsidering.) ; -)