Gauging the Strength of Evidence Prior to Plea Bargaining: The Interpretive Procedures of Court-Appointed Defense Attorneys |
| |
| Authors: | Debra S. Emmelman |
| |
| Affiliation: | Debra S. Emmelman is assistant professor of sociology at Southern Connecticut State University. A version of this paper was presented at the annual meetings of the Society for the Study of Social Problems in Miami, Florida, on 12 August 1993. The author would like to thank Joseph R. Gusfield, Jacqueline P. Wiseman, Michael E. Butler, Theodore T. Smith, and Thomas S. Weinberg as well as the reviewers of Law and Social Inquiry;for their helpful comments. Any errors of fact or interpretation are, however, solely the author's responsibility. |
| |
| Abstract: | An important debate among court observers is whether plea bargaining undermines the ideals of justice. This article presents findings that may rec-oncile some inconsistent research conclusions. It describes how, prior to plea bargaining, one group of court-appointed defense attorneys gauges the strength of evidence through a tacit, taken-for-granted process that emulates trial proceedings: based on their understanding of evidence in the legal com-munity, defenders imagine a courtroom dialogue wherein the prosecution and defense take turns presenting their cases in front of a judge and jury. At issue throughout the dialogue is whether or to what extent information is suffi-dent, legal, and persuasive enough to convict the defendant. Because the process is part of the defenders' ongoing and unspoken daily routines, it may elude unsuspecting investigators. Ironically, this means not only that some analysts may inappropriately conclude that legal ideals play no role in plea bargaining but also that others may ingenuously assume that such behavior is more ethical than it actually is. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
|
|
