By John William Wertheimer

Race and the Law in South Carolina carefully reconstructs the social history behind six legal disputes heard in the South Carolina courts between the 1840s and the 1940s. The book uses these case studies to probe the complex relationship between race and the law in the American South during a century that included slavery, Reconstruction, and Jim Crow. Throughout most of the period covered in the book, the South Carolina legal system obsessively drew racial lines, always to the detriment of nonwhite people. Occasionally, however, the legal system also provided a public forum—perhaps the region’s best—within which racism could openly be challenged. The book emphasizes how dramatically the degree of legal oppressiveness experienced by Black South Carolinians varied during the century under study, based largely on the degree of Black access to political and legal power. During the era of slavery, both enslaved and nominally “free” Black South Carolinians suffered extreme legal disenfranchisement. They had no political voice and precious little access to legal redress. They could not vote, serve in public office, sit on juries, or testify in court against whites. There were no Black lawyers. Black South Carolinians had essentially no claims-making ability, resulting, unsurprisingly, in a deeply oppressive, thoroughly racialized system. Most of these antebellum legal disenfranchisements were overturned during the post-Civil War era of Reconstruction. In the wake of abolition, Reconstruction-era reformers in South Carolina erased one racial distinction after another from state law. For a time, Black men voted and Black jurors sat in rough proportion to their share of the state’s population. ……

Amherst, MA: Amherst College Press, 2023.  346p.

Edited by Maureen Mulholland and Brian Pullan with Anne Pullan  

This book is about trials, civil and criminal, ecclesiastical and secular, in England and Europe between the thirteenth and the seventeenth centuries. The opening chapter provides a conceptual framework both for this book and for its companion volume on the eighteenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Subsequent chapters provide a rounded view of trials conducted according to different procedures within contrasting legal systems, including English common law and Roman canon law. They consider the judges and juries and the amateur and professional advisers involved in legal processes as well as the offenders brought before the courts, with the reasons for prosecuting them and the defences they put forward. The cases examined range from a fourteenth century cause-célèbre, the attempted trial of Pope Boniface VIII for heresy, to investigations of obscure people for sexual and religious offences in the city states of Geneva and Venice. Technical terms have been cut to a minimum to ensure accessibility and appeal to lawyers, social, political and legal historians, undergraduate and postgraduates as well as general readers interested in the development of the trial through time. 

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2003. 197p.

Edited by R.A. Melikan

How does the trial function? What are the tools, in terms of legal principle, scientific knowledge, social norms, and political practice, which underpin this most important decision-making process? This collection of nine essays by an international group of scholars explores these crucial questions. Focusing both on English criminal, military, and parliamentary trials, and upon national and international trials for war crimes, this book illuminates the diverse forces that have shaped trials during the modern era. The contributors approach their subject from a variety of perspectives - legal history, social history, political history, sociology, and international law. With an appreciation and understanding of the relevant legal procedures, they address wider issues of psychology, gender, bureaucracy, and international relations within the adjudicative setting. Their inter-disciplinary approach imparts to this book a breadth not usually seen in studies of the courtroom. Scholars and students of modern British history, political science, and international law, as well as legal history, will find these essays stimulating and informative. 

Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 2003. 207p.

By Saba Rouhani, Catherine Tomko,  Noelle P. Weicker, Susan G. Sherman 

 In March 2020, State’s Attorney Marilyn Mosby announced that drug and paraphernalia possession as well as prostitution would no longer be prosecuted in Baltimore City. • In the 14-month period following the policy change, we observed significant declines in arrests for drug and paraphernalia possession as well as prostitution, as reported by both the Baltimore Police Department and the State’s Attorney’s Office. Using Baltimore Police Department-reported arrest data, we estimated that 443 drug and paraphernalia possession arrests were averted in the 14-month period following the policy change, the majority (78%) of which were averted among Black individuals. • Using Maryland Courts Judicial Information Systems arrest data, we found an extremely low prevalence of rearrests for serious crimes, such as robbery and assault, in the 14-month period following the policy change: 0.8 percent, or six of the 741 individuals whose drug and prostitution charges were dropped. This suggests that the vast majority of direct beneficiaries of the policy change did not go on to commit crimes threatening public safety. • There was no evidence of an increase in public complaints pertaining to drugs or prostitution, measured by 911 calls made in Baltimore City, following the policy change. • Though causality cannot be established, these preliminary findings suggest that declining to prosecute low level drug and prostitution offenses may avert arrests among individuals with intersecting vulnerabilities without posing a threat to public safety or resulting in increased public complaints. Ensuring that these individuals can access health and social service instead of criminal punishment is a public health priority.

Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health ,  Department of Health, Behavior and Society:  2023. 21p. 

By Ram Subramanian, Leon Digard, Melvin Washington II, and Stephanie Sorage 

There are concerns about plea bargaining’s coercive nature, its role in encouraging the forfeiture of procedural protections, and its role in fueling mass incarceration. In order to provide an accessible summary of existing research, the Vera Institute of Justice, with support from the Safety and Justice Challenge, examined the small but growing body of empirical studies that has developed around plea bargaining. The result is a mix of complicated, nuanced, and sometimes contradictory research findings.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2020. 72p.

By The American Bar Association. Criminal Justice Section and Thea Johnson

The Plea Bargain Task Force formed in 2019 to address persistent criticisms of the plea bargain system in the United States.1 Plea bargaining has become the primary way to resolve criminal cases. Indeed, some jurisdictions have not had a criminal trial in many years, resolving all their cases through negotiated resolutions.2 For this reason, a critical examination of the modern plea system is necessary and important. This Report comes after three years of work, during which the Task Force collected and reviewed testimony from experts in the field and those impacted by the plea system, scholarly and legal reports on plea bargaining, state and federal rules of criminal procedure, and other materials. What has become clear from this process is that plea bargaining is not one monolithic practice. It looks different depending on whether one is in state or federal court, a rural jurisdiction with few lawyers or an urban center with large prosecution and public defender offices. Even within the same courthouse, informal practices may differ between courtrooms and attorneys. Although these variations pose a challenge for the development of any one-size-fits-all set of recommendations to reform plea bargaining practices, this Report identifies and addresses numerous concerns with plea bargaining that are common to a wide variety of jurisdictions. The Report then provides guidance to jurisdictions on how to meet those challenges while also promoting justice, transparency, and fairness. There are many purported benefits of plea bargaining in the current criminal justice system. Nearly all jurisdictions have limited resources and plea bargaining provides a mechanism to efficiently resolve cases. ..

Chicago:: ABA, 2023. 40p.

By Andreea Matei, Lily Robin, Kelly Roberts Freeman, and Leigh Courtney

As we have come to reckon with our nation's overreliance on carceral punishment and the mass incarceration of people of color, particularly Black people, experts are turning to a key system point that is the primary method for resolving most criminal cases: plea bargaining. Plea bargaining involves negotiation between a prosecutor and, often, a defense provider on behalf of their client. Prosecutors hold a lot of discretion over how to proceed regarding plea bargains, including whether to offer a plea agreement, when to do so, and what they wish to offer. Despite the wide use of plea bargaining, little is known about the practice, largely because it happens outside of public view and little is documented by the key actors involved—prosecutors.

In this report, we discuss findings from our exploratory single-site study, in which we used qualitative and quantitative data to answer research questions of interest. Our activities included a policy review; analysis of administrative data from 2018 to 2021; interviews with 11 Philadelphia ADAs, 9 defense providers, and 5 people who accepted pleas; a case file review of 115 cases; and a survey of 65 ADAs. Because prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining is not well documented in data, the best way to learn about discretion is by speaking with prosecutors; thus, this report focuses primarily on our qualitative findings. We organized our findings by three main topics: policies and goals of plea bargaining, trends in plea offers and outcomes, and decision-making and perceptions of key actors. We end the report with a discussion of policy implications.

Washington, DC: Urban Institute, 2022. 76p.

By  Don Stemen, Beth M. Huebner, Marisa Omori, Elizabeth Webster, Alessandra Early, and Luis Torres

Although guilty pleas are the modal method for criminal case resolution in the US, relatively little attention has been paid to the plea negotiation process. Research suggests that prosecutors drive plea decision-making; however, the decision process is largely hidden and informal. Consequently, little is known about the role that prosecutors and other criminal justice actors play across the process, and even less is known about how these mechanisms have changed over time, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. Unpacking these plea negotiation decisions are especially key to understanding racial and ethnic disparities in criminal case processing.

Funded as part of the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation's Safety and Justice Challenge Research Consortium, the current study considers guilty plea negotiation processes and outcomes in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, and St. Louis County, Missouri. Both offices are currently led by reform-oriented attorneys, are are medium-sized offices serving urban and suburban jurisdictions. Over the long tenure of elected District Attorney John Chisholm in Milwaukee, the office has implemented innovative prosecution models such as community prosecution units and diversion programs. In St Louis, recently elected District Attorney Wesley Bell is the first Black person to hold the office, and he ran on a platform of ensuring equity in the system and reducing mass incarceration. The goal of the study is to explore how prosecutors and other court actors approach and make decisions surrounding the plea negotiation process, in addition to investigating the factors that affect plea outcomes. The data used in this report include narratives from interviews with and surveys of local stakeholders including prosecutors, public defenders, judges, private attorneys, and system-involved persons. The report also centers on administrative data collected through agencies' case management systems for criminal cases filed in Milwaukee and St. Louis Counties through 2020.

Safety and Justice Challenge, 2022. 49p.

By Jarred Williams

As one component of the Strengthening the Foundation – A Researcher and Practitioner Partnership project funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, this research brief provides a snapshot of the existing evidence base behind the adult drug court model, while also identifying potential areas of interest to seed the next generation of drug court research. Our findings document the data-driven successes of the drug court model, the evidence-based mechanisms that are associated with positive participant outcomes, and lastly, our recommendations for future research. Continuing to seek answers through rigorous study will open up exciting avenues for future research and programming to continue to provide the best possible treatment for participants. 

New York: Center for Justice Innovation, 2023. 16p.

By Ronald Wright and Jenny Roberts

This review collects and critiques the academic literature on criminal defense lawyering, with an emphasis on empirical work. Research on criminal defense attorneys in the United States has traditionally emphasized scarcity of resources: too many people facing criminal charges who are “too poor to pay” for counsel and not enough funding to pay for the constitutionally mandated lawyers. Scholars have focused on the capacity of different delivery systems, such as public defender offices, to change the ultimate outcomes in criminal cases within their tight budgetary constraints. Over the decades, however, theoretical understandings of the defense attorney's work have expanded to include client interests outside the criminal courtroom, reaching the broader social conditions connected to the alleged criminal act. Researchers have responded by asking a broader range of questions about the effectiveness of defense counsel outside the courtroom and by using improved data to study the effectiveness of lawyers at discrete procedural stages.

Annual Review of Criminology. Vol. 6:241-264 (Volume publication date January 2023)

By Christopher Slobogin and Sarah Brayne

This review focuses on government use of technology to observe, collect, or record potential criminal activity in real-time, as contrasted with “transaction surveillance” that involves government efforts to access already-existing records and exploit Big Data, topics that have been the focus of previous reviews (Brayne 2018, Ridgeway 2018). Even so limited, surveillance technologies come in many guises, including closed-circuit television, automated license plate and facial readers, aerial cameras, and GPS tracking. Also classifiable as surveillance technology are devices such as thermal and electromagnetic imagers that can “see” through walls and clothing. Finally, surveillance includes wiretapping and other forms of communication interception. The following discussion briefly examines the limited evidence we have about the prevalence and effectiveness of these technologies and then describes the law governing surveillance, focusing principally on constitutional doctrine, and how it might—and might not—limit use of these technologies in the future.

  Annual Review of Criminology,  2023. 6:219–40 

By Eric R. Collins

  Two observations about the operation of the criminal legal system are so widely accepted that they seem undeniable: First, it is a system of pleas, not trials. Second, the system is too punitive and must be reformed. One could easily think, therefore, that the Federal Rules of Evidence, which apply intentionally and explicitly only to the adjudicatory phase of criminal procedure, have nothing to do with the solution. And legal scholarship focusing on decarceration largely reflects this assumption: while many have explored reforms that target front end system actors and processes that lead people into the system (e.g. police, prosecutors, broad criminal statutes), and back end reforms that that seek to lessen the toll of punitive policies (sentencing reform, alternatives to incarceration), markedly fewer have explored how what happens in the middle — adjudication — contributes to mass incarceration. While this oversight makes sense, it is not justified because it is also equally undeniable that plea bargaining happens in the shadow of trial. This Article examines how the shadow of trial — specifically, the shadow cast by evidentiary rulings about the accused person’s past — contributes to the perpetuation of an expansive carceral state. It identifies how evidence rules have been relaxed, tweaked, specialized, or unmoored from their foundational principles in ways that facilitate prosecution and conviction or essentially force plea deals – without regard for the truth, fairness, or justice of the outcome. In other words, it identifies ways that evidence law undermines the Rules’ primary purpose, which is to advance fair proceedings “to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination.”   

Fordham Urban Law Journal, 50(3): 2023. 

Amanda Y. Agan, Jennifer L. Doleac & Anna Harvey

Communities across the United States are reconsidering the public safety benefits of prosecuting nonviolent misdemeanor offenses, yet there is little empirical evidence to inform policy in this area. In this paper we report the first estimates of the causal effects of misdemeanor prosecution on defendants' subsequent criminal justice involvement. We leverage the as-if random assignment of nonviolent misdemeanor cases to Assistant District Attorneys (ADAs) who decide whether a case should be prosecuted in the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office in Massachusetts. These ADAs vary in the average leniency of their prosecution decisions. We find that, for the marginal defendant, non-prosecution of a nonviolent misdemeanor offense leads to a 53% reduction in the likelihood of a new criminal complaint, and to a 60% reduction in the number of new criminal complaints, over the next two years. These local average treatment effects are largest for defendants without prior criminal records, suggesting that averting criminal record acquisition is an important mechanism driving our findings. We also present evidence that a recent policy change in Suffolk County imposing a presumption of nonprosecution for nonviolent misdemeanor offenses had similar beneficial effects, decreasing the likelihood of subsequent criminal justice involvement

Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022. 103p.

By Scrutinize

Institute for the Quantitative Study of Inclusion, Diversity, and Equity Zimroth Center on the Administration of Criminal Law at NYU School of Law

An analysis of public pretrial data from 2020-2022 reveals that some New York City judges are disproportionately carceral, i.e., these judges are substantially more likely to order pretrial detention
than their peers, even when accounting for factors such as the severity of the case and the defendant’s
prior criminal history. The fourteen judges who exhibited the most carceral discretion compared to their peers are Felicia Mennin, Gerald Lebovits, Quynda Santacroce, Josh Hanshaft, Kerry Ward, Bruna DiBiase, Gerianne Abriano, Beth Beller, Phyllis Chu, Alan Schiff, Tara Collins, Derefim Neckles, Joseph McCormack, and Lumarie Maldonado-Cruz. These fourteen judges’ disproportionately carceral decisions over 2.5 years resulted in an estimated 580 additional people detained, 154 additional years of pretrial detention, and over $77 million of additional costs borne by New York City taxpayers.

New York: The Authors, 2023. 29p.

By Hannah E. Meyers

  All prosecutors are required to hand over relevant material to defense attorneys prior to trial, a process referred to as “discovery.” Discovery is fundamental to a fair trial because it is impossible for defendants to make informed plea-bargain decisions if they do not know the strength of the evidence that prosecutors have against them. However, New York’s 2019 discovery statute, Criminal Procedure Law Article 245 (“245”), has crippled the state’s criminal justice system with an untenable compliance burden that prevents it from being either just or appropriately adversarial. It has forced district attorneys’ offices to triage cases and has harmed both the victims of crime and, in the long run, many criminal offenders. The NYS Legislature can correct the systemic harms caused by 245 and increase fairness to defendants, reduce administrative burdens on police and prosecutors, and rebalance risk so that the consequences of noncompliance align with substantive impacts on due process. New York’s new discovery rules, which went into effect in January 2020, were such an extreme and far-reaching version of “reform” that even famously progressive Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg recently complained: “My Office’s lawyers and support staff continue their herculean efforts in managing discovery-related obligations.” The Legal Aid Society, which represents and advocates for criminal defendants, correctly crowed that, rather than simply reinforcing prosecutors’ discovery duties, as intended, 245 “is transforming New York State’s criminal justice system.” The new discovery obligations are indeed so herculean that NYS prosecutors have been able to meet them within the mandated time frames on only 21% of cases. In statewide local courts, they are met on 16% of cases, and in NYC local courts, that number dwindles to 13%. And because discovery must now be met within New York’s preexisting “speedy trial” time windows, on pain of automatic dismissal, thousands of viable cases have been thrown out—not because justice demands it but simply because the compliance burden has proved too great. In NYC courts, dismissals rose from 44% of all disposed cases in 2019, to 69% in 2021. Statewide, dismissals rose by 14% in that period. Meanwhile, guilty pleas fell in NYC from 45% to 21%—and statewide, from 49% to 33%—as defense attorneys have, correctly, become more confident that cases will be dismissed rather than go to trial.

New York: Manhattan Institute, 2023. 43p.

By John F. Pfaff

Given the undeniable role that prosecutorial discretion has played in driving mass incarceration, it makes sense to turn to them to scale it back as well. This has certainly been a central motivation of the progressive/reform prosecutor movement that started in the late 2000s. And while this movement has had some notable successes, recent years have shed some important light on the limits it faces as well. In this essay, I want to focus on how the county-ness of prosecutors hems in their power from two different directions. On the one hand, as county officials, prosecutors—at least in most major urban areas—have a large number of constituents who live in the suburbs and regularly oppose reforms … of policies that by and large do not affect them. It’s telling that many, if not most, reform prosecutors have been elected in counties that either have no suburbs at all within their borders (Philadelphia, Baltimore, St. Louis) or where the suburbs are a small fraction of the overall population (Boston, Portland). It’s clear across a wide range of cities that the core support for reform DAs comes from Black communities with high levels of violence, i.e., the communities that bear the brunt of DA decisionmaking. The more suburban voters in a county, however, the more diluted those voices become. On the other hand, as county officials, prosecutors operate at the mercy of state officials, who have a wide range of powers for clipping their wings: legislatures can give state AGs concurrent jurisdiction, for example, and in many places governors can remove elected DAs or take their cases away from them. While states are shielded from (some) federal interventions by the 10th Amendment, county officials have no such protection, as reform DAs in GOP-controlled states are increasingly beginning to discover.

(March 4, 2023). Fordham Urban Law Journal, Forthcoming, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4378322

By Brittany Friedman and Mary Pattillo
  Monetary sanctions mandated in state statutes include fines, fees, restitution, and other legal costs imposed on persons convicted of crimes and other legal violations. Drawing on content analysis of current legislative statutes in Illinois pertaining to monetary sanctions, we ask three questions: What are defendants expected to pay for and why? What accommodations exist for defendants’ poverty? What are the consequences for nonpayment? We find that neoliberal logics of personal responsibility and carceral expansion suffuse these laws, establishing a basis for transferring public costs onto criminal defendants, offering little relief for poverty, and supporting severe additional penalties for unpaid debt. Statutory inequality legally authorizes further impoverishment of the poor, thereby increasing inequality. Major related organizing and advocacy work, however, has created an opening for significant changes toward greater fairness.  

  RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 5(1): 173–96.

By Duke Law School, Wilson Center for Science and Justice

Nationwide harm lasting and severe causes many, people of millions of tens for these pay to poor too are whom of bulk The. fees and fines mandatory perhaps, fees and fines these of lowest the from arise, surprisingly particularly—cases criminal level minor other and cases traffic Police. misdemeanors and infractions traffic of millions of tens conduct the, far by, are they; year every stops between interaction common most .public the and enforcement law debt legal criminal, more s’What ,people Black burdens disparately 1.poor the and, color of communities debt legal criminal, many For fines their because accumulates from unaffordable were fees and require not do states Most. start the before pay to ability s’person a determine to courts waivers cost-no have they do nor, fees and fines imposing judges required has law the, long too For. indigent the for ,cases criminal level-low in collectors debt as act to assessing first without fines collecting and imposing of suspension the in resulting ultimately, pay to ability to barriers experience who those for privileges driving to get cannot people, license s’driver a Without. payment needs basic their get or, families their of care take, work ,doctor a visiting, school to children their taking like, met .  

Durham, NC: Duke Law School, Wilson Center for Science and Justice, 2021. 18p.

 By William Crozier , Brandon Garrett & Thomas Maher

 There has been an explosion of debt in our North Carolina criminal courts, much of it that has not been paid and likely never can or will be paid. In over 1.72 million cases total – and 120,000 cases each year criminal courts in North Carolina have imposed fees that a person cannot or does not pay. A failure to comply with the court order to pay, or an “FTC,” is then entered in the case. Over 650,000 people, or one in twelve adults in North Carolina currently have such unpaid criminal court debt. This largely uncollectible debt may total well over one hundred million dollars. This debt disproportionately burdens minority residents of North Carolina. Much of this debt arises in low-level traffic cases and infractions.

Durham, NC: The Center, 2020. 20p.

By Maria Rafael

Nearly every person convicted in a Washington court faces the heavy burden of court debt.2 The vast majority of Washingtonians with criminal cases—as many as 90 percent—meet the indigency standard, indicating that they have limited or no ability to repay their court debt.3 People with court debt are more likely to already be burdened by other types of debt, making it even more difficult for them to free themselves of the financial burden of LFOs.

New York: Vera Institute of Justice, 2023. 10p.