Predicting the outcomes of U.S. Supreme Court cases has always been favorite pastime of lawyers - but what if you were always right?
Sarah Levien Shullman has a perfect track record and the statistics to back it up.
While a student at Georgetown University School of Law, Shullman attended the court's oral arguments as part of an internship with CBS news.
She analyzed the frequency and tenor of the justices' questions and authored an article, The Illusion of Devil's Advocacy: How the U.S. Supreme Court Justices Foreshadow Their Decisions During Oral Argument.
What she found disputes the popular notion that justices often play devil's advocate toward the side they favor, asking difficult questions so as not to tip their hand.
Instead, Shullman determined that each justice asks fewer - and less hostile - questions of the side he or she supports, and more argumentative and more questions overall of the side he ultimately votes against.
In addition, she found that in close cases, the total number of questions asked by all the justices can help predict the outcome: the party facing the fewest questions was - in every case - the winner.