Last December then Chief Justice Abrahamson wrote a concurrence to State v. Gonzalez, which publicized SCOW’s new procedures and deadlines for drafting, circulating, and issuing opinions. Abrahamson criticized the procedures partly because SCOW adopted them in private and partly because they eliminated the conferences where justices discussed their draft opinions and their thoughts about writing a concurrence or dissent. On Point reported the development here. With last week’s John Doe decisions, the 2014-2015 term ended. That means it’s possible to determine whether the new procedures have made a difference. See for yourself on today’s edition of SCOWstats.