Moreover, of course judges are not unbiased, plaintiffs are not random, and not all legal claims are borderline. It's difficult to assess the numbers without a sense of the underlying merit of the cases. How many of those cases were split decisions in controversial cases, as opposed to unanimous opinions in rather mundane cases? Also, we would also have to compare Corona's voting pattern to other justices on the court. If the majority had a similar vote pattern, Corona wouldn't be such an exception.
Finally, if the prosecution is right and Corona favors Arroyo, why would he vote against her in 20% of cases? Again, we'd want to be sure that 20% is statistically significant, but it still must be explained. After all, if Corona was so loyal to Arroyo, why vote against her at all? It would be interesting to find out more about those cases.
In U.S. law, prosecutors are generally not allowed to use general statistical patterns as evidence. This announcement shows why. While Corona might have been unduly loyal to Arroyo, the headline oversimplifies the situation.
I have reposted the article below: