By John W. Ropp, Jacqueline G. Lee, Laura L. King, Lisa M. Growette Bostaph

Research continues to explore factors that contribute to high rates of attrition among sexual assault cases. Comparatively little is known, however, about prosecutorial, as opposed to police, decision-making in these cases. Using a mixed-method approach to analyze (1) 175 case files from a midsize policing agency in the West with trained sexual assault investigators and (2) detailed prosecutor notes from 52 corresponding cases, we explore patterns in three key outcomes: (a) arrest, (b) referral for prosecution, and (c) charging. Logistic regression results indicate that fewer variables predicted case outcomes compared with previous studies, suggesting that specially trained officers may be more adept at dismissing “rape myth” factors. Qualitative analysis of prosecutorial case notes, however, revealed that prosecutors tended to compare specific case elements to an envisioned “ideal” case, which frequently aligned with some pervasive rape myths prevalent in society. Prosecutors focused heavily on convictability, anticipating how a potential jury would respond to the case. Although specially trained investigators may better disregard extralegal rape-myth factors, these myths still plague decision-making at the prosecutorial stage indirectly via concerns for juror interpretation of the facts. We find strong support for the “downstream” perspective of prosecutorial decision-making.

Criminology, Volume 62, Issue 4, 2024, pages 704-738

By Anita Heber, Tea Fredriksson

This article explores how Swedish lay-judges assess victims’ credibility in district court. Previous studies have explored how biases and emotional expressions impact credibility assessments. Adding to this, the present study analyses how lay-judges assess courtroom credibility from an intersectional perspective. Based on 24 in-depth interviews with lay-judges, the study explores three intertwined layers of credibility: appearances, narratives and emotions. The analysis concludes that these layers actualize balancing acts for both victims and the lay-judges assessing them. These layers of credibility can compound for victims, making them particularly credible in the eyes of the lay-judges, especially if and when they perform victimhood in line with expectations set by their intersectional characteristics.

The British Journal of Criminology, 2024, XX, 1–17 pages