An aggregate-level examination of the caseload pressure hypothesis

The idea that guilty pleas may be encouraged by time-conscious attorneys to process court caseloads expediently implies that some defendants may be influenced to forego their constitutional right to trial. If true, these defendants may be denied an adequate determination of legal guilt. Building on previous research, this paper presents a more thorough aggregate level test of the caseload pressure hypothesis than has previously been offered. Controlling for variation in structural and procedural characteristics across 101 Illinois circuit courts, this study supports the idea that felony caseload pressures significantly covary with felony guilty plea rates. Also, this relationship was stable between 1973 and 1984.     

Gacaca Courts: Between Fantasy and Reality

Faced with an overflowing caseload and imperatives of nationalreconciliation, Rwandan authorities have established a systemof justice, meted out through gacaca courts under the legalframework created by organic laws. The following contributionanalyses this framework, within the context of national andinternational legal systems, and pinpoints the shortcomingsof the proposed form of justice. These include legal issuessuch as the problem of retroactivity, as well as the definitionof crimes and concerns over due process and the right to a fairtrial for defendants. Practical and material obstacles arisein implementing the organic laws, alongside broader implicationsowing to the traditional nature of such courts and possibleinterference by political authorities. In this respect, thegacaca courts may be victims of their own ambitions, by seekingto respond to judicial, societal and philosophical concernsalike.     

Low-Level,but High Speed?: Assessing Pretrial Detention Effects on the Timing and Content of Misdemeanor versus Felony Guilty Pleas

Abstract

While numerous studies have examined pretrial detention and felony case outcomes, little empirical attention has been devoted to misdemeanor pretrial detention. We theorize that misdemeanants detained for a longer proportion of time will plead guilty quicker because the costs of fighting their charges in jail often outweigh the sanctions they face. Utilizing data on 165,630 felony and misdemeanor cases from Miami-Dade County, Florida, during a 4-year period (2012–2015) we assess whether the effects of pretrial detention length on the timing and content of guilty pleas differ across lower-level and upper-level courts. Survival analyses and multinomial logistic regressions indicate that misdemeanor cases overall and those involving lengthier pretrial detention are resolved faster, with most resulting in non-carceral sanctions such as credit for time served (CTS). Given that misdemeanors make-up the bulk of U.S. criminal cases, these findings reveal important insights about how pretrial detention impacts case-processing dynamics in lower courts.     

Is the Process the Only Punishment?: Racial–Ethnic Disparities in Lower-Level Courts

Although misdemeanors make up the bulk of criminal cases in the United States, the majority of research on court decision-making examines felony sentencing. In contrast to felony courts, lower-level courts are characterized by higher case volumes and increased reliance on informal sanctions, which may contribute to greater racial–ethnic disparities. To assess this possibility, we examine pretrial detention and case processing outcomes for misdemeanants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Utilizing temporal (detention time) and monetary (bond amount) measures of pretrial detention, we assess whether and to what extent there are racial–ethnic disparities in formal and informal sanctions facing misdemeanants. Results indicate that black defendants, especially black Latinx defendants, face greater informal sanctions (longer detention and higher bond amounts), are more likely to be convicted, and experience more severe formal sanctions than do white non-Latinx defendants. These findings complicate Feeley's (1979) argument about lower-level cases, revealing that black defendants are punished by both the court process and formal sanctions. In this way, “the process is the punishment” for lower-level white and nonwhite defendants, while the punishment is also the punishment for black defendants.     

Congress and the political expansion of the U.S. districts courts

Expanding the number of U.S. district judgeships is often justifiedas a response to expanding caseloads. Increasing judgeshipsduring unified government, however, allows Congress and thePresident to engage in political (patronage and ideological)control of the federal district courts. This paper examinesempirically the relative importance of caseload pressure andpolitical motives for Congress to expand the number of federaldistrict judgeships. We demonstrate that politics dominatesthe timing of judgeship expansion in the U.S. District Courts.We also show that both politics and caseload affect the actualsize of those timed expansions. In particular, we find thatbefore 1970, Congress seemed to have strong political motivationsfor the size of an expansion. After 1970, Congress became muchmore attentive to caseload considerations.     

Improving court-appearance rates through court-date reminder phone calls

Without a defendant’s appearance in court, the adjudication of criminal charges cannot proceed. The low defendant court appearance rates of Lafayette Parish, Louisiana were identified as a high priority to address. A pilot project was implemented, in which, Lafayette Parish Sheriff’s Office (LPSO) Information Officers would call defendants approximately 5–9 days before their pretrial court appearance. This process began in September 2014. LPSO staff attempted to call all non-incarcerated or diverted defendants with known contact information. LPSO staff documented when calls were made and the type of response (spoke to defendant, left a voicemail, no answer, inoperable phone or spoke to friend or family member). Calls were made to defendants with court appearances in arraignment hearings, misdemeanor pretrial and trial, felony pretrial and traffic court. Court appearance rates for all court hearings increased from 48 to 62%.     

Did Drug Courts Lead to Increased Arrest and Punishment of Minor Drug Offenses?

Drug courts were implemented nationwide during the 1990s to expand alternatives to incarceration for individuals with substance use disorders that were charged with nonviolent felonies or misdemeanors. Although these courts were publicized as a facilitator of treatment and alternative to incarceration, researchers and advocates have suggested that this approach may have unintentionally intensified law enforcement focus on casual drug users and individuals with minor substance dependency. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether there is evidence that drug courts systemically increased the arrest and punishment of misdemeanor drug use and possession by conducting a series of panel data analyses among more than 8,000 city and county jurisdictions while controlling for economic, demographic, and nationwide law enforcement trends. Analyses in this study provide evidence that local police increased their attention toward minor drug offenses in jurisdictions where drug courts were implemented across the nation.     

No Job Too Small: Justice Without Bargaining in the lower Criminal Courts

Plea bargaining and other informal disposition devices dominate case processing in the lower criminal courts. Consistently, studies have found such courts characterized by assembly-line procedures, deemphasis or disregard of formal due process rights, and guilty plea rates approaching 100% of all convictions. Caseload pressures, tendencies toward cooperation among courtroom participants and, above all, process costs of litigation that greatly outweigh the stakes in minor cases are widely thought to render informality and high guilty plea rates inevitable.
The study reported here challenges these assumptions. The author finds that in Philadelphia roughly one-fifth of all misdemeanor dispositions and one-half of all determinations of guilt are the result of genuine adversarial trials. He shows that an adversarial trial system need not impose prohibitive resource costs, even when extended to misdemeanor cases involving little likelihood of imprisonment, and that process costs will not deter defendants from invoking formal procedures when the court culture is committed to providing trials. Finally, the author argues that even routine misdemeanor cases benefit from guarantees of fairness and accuracy afforded by trial but unattainable when cases are processed by plea bargaining.     

我国刑法中轻罪与重罪若干问题研究

我国刑法中轻罪与重罪的划分,仅指轻罪行与重罪行的划分。在学术界关于区分轻罪和重罪的四种观点中,以一定法定刑为标准认定罪行的轻重具有充分的依据。认定轻罪和重罪法定刑的分界线当以有期徒刑3年为限,即凡法定最低刑为3年或3年以上有期徒刑的罪行都是重罪,反之便是轻罪。我国刑法存在若干轻罪与重罪界限不明的条文,需调整其罪刑关系。犯罪的未完成形态只存在于重罪之中。     

Whither the Prosecutor? Prosecutor and County Effects on Guilty Plea Outcomes in Wisconsin

Abstract

By most accounts, the prosecutor is the most powerful person in the courtroom, with discretion to dismiss cases, reduce charges, and offer noncustodial sentences in exchange for guilty pleas. Yet, little is known about the effects of individual prosecutors or community contexts on case outcomes. Relying on data from 318,000 felony and misdemeanor cases in Wisconsin, the present study examines the impact of several prosecutor and county characteristics on case dismissal, guilty plea to lesser charges, and the imposition of a noncustodial sentence following a guilty plea. The authors find that prosecutor caseload composition is associated with variations in guilty plea outcomes, but that neither prosecutor experience nor prosecutor caseload pressure affect other case outcomes. The authors also find that defense counsel and change in defense counsel exert significant influence on guilty plea outcomes. These findings are discussed in relation to focal concerns and courtroom communities perspectives.     

RACIAL AND ETHNIC DIFFERENCES IN PRETRIAL RELEASE DECISIONS AND OUTCOMES: A COMPARISON OF HISPANIC,BLACK, AND WHITE FELONY ARRESTEES*

The present study uses data on the processing of felony defendants in large urban courts to examine Hispanic, black, and white differences at the pretrial release stage. The major finding is that Hispanic defendants are more likely to be detained than white and black defendants. And, racial/ethnic differences are most pronounced in drug cases. In fact, Hispanic defendants suffer a triple burden at the pretrial release stage as they are the group most likely to be required to pay bail to gain release, the group that receives the highest bail amounts, and the group least able to pay bail. These findings are consistent with a focal concerns perspective of criminal case processing that suggests Hispanics as a newly immigrated group are especially prone to harsher treatment in the criminal case process.     

Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing

This study uses data on the processing of felony defendants in large urban courts to analyze racial and ethnic disparities in pretrial processing. There are three major findings. First, racial disparity is most notable during the decision to deny bail and for defendants charged with violent crimes. Second, ethnic disparity is most notable during the decision to grant a non‐financial release and for defendants charged with drug crimes. Third, when there is disparity in the treatment of Black and Latino defendants with similar legal characteristics, Latinos always receive the less beneficial decisions. These findings are consistent with the theoretical perspective offered, which suggests that stereotypes influence criminal processing when their specific content is made salient by either the concerns relevant to a particular processing decision or the crime type of a defendant’s primary charge.     

Juror Perceptions of the Legitimacy of Legal Authorities and Decision Making in Criminal Cases

Literature on trust in legal authorities and institutions demonstrates that trust affects individual behavior, yet there is little research on whether attitudes toward legal authorities such as the police or courts influence juror behavior as a third party assessing evidence and determining legal outcomes for others. Additionally, the literature on juror decision making confirms that juror race is an important predictor of juror decisions, but explanations for differences among racial groups are not clear. Since minority groups hold less favorable attitudes toward legal authorities generally, legitimacy theory may help explain racial differences in decision making among jurors. Using data from nearly 2,000 jurors in felony trials, this research utilizes multilevel modeling techniques to find that jurors' trust in legal authorities is related to juror outcomes, though the effect of juror trust and confidence in the police is opposite that of juror trust and confidence in the courts. Additionally, juror race conditions the effect of trust in police and courts. Trust is a stronger predictor of both perceptions of evidence and voting for black jurors than it is for white jurors.     

Preemption of local smoke-free air ordinances: the implications of judicial opinions for meeting national health objectives.

Elimination of state laws that preempt local antismoking ordinances is a national health objective. However, the tobacco industry and its supporters have continued to pursue state-level preemption of local tobacco control ordinances as part of an apparent strategy to avoid the diffusion of grassroots antismoking initiatives. And, an increasing number of challenges to local ordinances by the tobacco industry and persons supported by the tobacco industry are being decided in state supreme courts and courts of appeals. The outcomes of seemingly similar cases about the validity of local smoke-free air ordinances vary significantly by state. This paper examines the common and unique aspects of the decisions and the potential implications of court rulings on preemption for future state tobacco control efforts and achievement of national health objectives around the elimination of preemption. Using a search strategy developed for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's State Tobacco Activities Tracking and Evaluation (STATE) System, cases where a state or federal appellate level court made a finding on the validity of a local smoke-free air ordinance or regulation were identified in 19 states. In contrast to previous studies, we found that cases in approximately half of states were decided for local governments. We also found that across the states, courts were considering similar factors in their decisions including the extent to which: (1) the local government possessed the authority to pass the ordinance, (2) the ordinance conflicted with the state constitution, and (3) state statutes preempt the ordinance.     

论犯罪分层理论的立法走向——以宽严相济刑事政策为视角

犯罪分层是纵向的犯罪分类,一般分为轻罪、重罪。宽严相济刑事政策是贯穿刑事立法、刑事司法和刑事执法全过程的根本性、全局性和总括性的刑事政策。宽严相济刑事政策要求犯罪分层理论的立法明确化,并要求在立法时采取以刑罚为基础的形式标准和抽象的思考方式。但就现阶段而言,我国实现犯罪分层理论的立法明确化,存在着刑法典罪刑不相应、研究不充分等立法障碍。所以,犯罪分层的立法明确化对于贯彻宽严相济的刑事政策具有重大的意义,但犯罪分层的立法实现则是一项艰巨的任务。     

Gender Disparities in Sentencing Departures: An Examination of U.S. Federal Courts

Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission, the present study examines the role of guideline departures in the sentencing of male and female defendants in federal courts. Findings indicate that female defendants continue to have lower odds of incarceration and to receive shorter sentence length terms, even after legal, extralegal, and contextual factors are controlled. The largest gender difference in the odds of incarceration was found for defendants who received substantial assistance departures, while male and female defendants in this same category were given the most similar sentence lengths. When departure status was examined as a dependent variable, it was found that female defendants were more likely to receive a sentencing departure. Finally, for both males and female defendants sentenced on multiple counts, those who went to trial and had prior criminal histories were less likely to receive sentencing departures. But defendants with higher guidelines sentences, those who had committed drug offenses, and those with more education were more likely to receive a sentencing departure.     

The Legal Context of School Violence: The Effectiveness of Federal, State, and Local Law Enforcement Efforts to Reduce Gun Violence in Schools

In the wake of recent school shootings, communities and legislatures are searching for law enforcement solutions to the perceived epidemic of school violence. A variety of legal measures have been debated and proposed. These include: the enactment of tougher gun control laws and more vigorous federal and local enforcement of existing gun control laws; the enactment of laws imposing civil or criminal liability on parents for their children's violent behavior; the establishment of specialized courts and prosecution strategies for handling juveniles who are charged with weapons offenses; stricter enforcement of school disciplinary codes; reform of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to make it easier to expel students for weapons violations; and greater use of alternative schools as placements for students who are charged with weapons violations.
  This article provides a legal and empirical analysis of proposed legislation in these areas as informed by social science research on the patterns of school violence, gun acquisition by juveniles, and the effectiveness of various laws and law enforcement measures. It proposes and discusses recommendations for legal reform. While efforts to reduce school violence will be most effective at the state and local levels, the United States federal government has an important role to play, particularly in federal‐state partnerships aimed at disrupting illegal gun markets, and through the formulation of national standards and guidelines. These standards and guidelines are for the enforcement of existing laws; inter‐agency law enforcement cooperation and information‐sharing (particularly using computer‐based analysis); effective school discipline and alternative educational settings for disruptive youth; and psycho‐educational interventions designed to detect and prevent school violence in the first place.     

Punishment in Indian Country: Ironies of Federal Punishment of Native Americans

Native Americans are US citizens, but they are also tribal nationals subject to complex and unique criminal jurisdiction arrangements over Indian lands. Tribal nations typically have tribal court jurisdiction over less serious crimes, but for serious crimes the federal justice system often supersedes tribal authority, exposing Native Americans to more severe punishments. In addition, recent federal programs have attempted to foster greater tribal/federal criminal justice coupling. Yet, examinations of criminal punishment of Native Americans are few, and most are outdated and/or of very limited generalizability. We examine the punishment of Native American defendants in federal court, focusing on 28 federal districts with substantial Indian presence. Using recent US Sentencing Commission data, as well as contextual data from the Bureau of Indian Affairs and tribal courts, we focus on differences in the federal sentencing of Native American defendants, and how these differences are conditioned by indicators of tribal-federal criminal justice coupling.     

PRETRIAL RELEASE AND BAIL DECISIONS

This study examines the relative effects of a number of legal and extralegal factors on (1) the decision to release on recognizance and (2) the decision on amount of money bail. Social science research on these issues has been sparse compared to that on other phases of the criminal justice process. Findings from a regression analysis show that the first step of the bond disposition process, the recognizance decision, is influenced by several factors. The demeanor of defendants in open court is the most important. Net of other influences, good demeanor increases the probability of release on recognizance by 34.8%. In cases where recognizance is denied, only two variables are related significantly to the amount of money bond. Net of other influences, a felony offense (as opposed to a misdemeanor) increases predicted bail by $2300, and poor demeanor increases the predicted bail required by $1600.     

SEX‐BASED DISPARITIES IN FELONY DISPOSITIONS BEFORE VERSUS AFTER SENTENCING REFORM IN OHIO*

Extending Koons‐Witt's (2002) study of whether sex‐based disparities in imprisonment likelihoods changed under sentencing guidelines in Minnesota, we examined similar models for Ohio with additional analyses of felony conviction likelihoods and sentence length for 5,472 felony defendants from twenty‐four trial courts. The main effects of a defendant's sex on imprisonment were significant during both periods (unlike the Minnesota findings), consistent with a chivalry perspective. Random coefficient models revealed that these effects were similar across the twenty‐four jurisdictions. Analyses also revealed significant postguideline reductions in sentence length disparities based on a woman's race and number of dependent children, yet increased disparities in imprisonment likelihoods postguidelines based on a woman's race and whether she was convicted on drug charges. These and other findings are discussed in the context of the Ohio legislature's implementation of a sentencing scheme that retains considerably more judicial discretion relative to Minnesota's template.