nmm 22 4500 ICPSR07808 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s1984 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR07808 MiAaI MiAaI Assessing Local Legal Culture [electronic resource] Practitioner Norms in Four Criminal Courts, 1979 Thomas W. Jr. Church 2005-11-04 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1984 ICPSR 7808 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study attempts to operationalize the concept of local legal culture by examining differences in the processing of twelve hypothetical criminal cases in four criminal courts. Questionnaires asking how these hypothetical cases should best be handled were administered to judges, district attorneys, and defense attorneys in four cities: Bronx County (New York City), New York, Detroit, Michigan, Miami, Florida, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In each city, the presiding judge, prosecutor, and head of the public defender's office were informed of the project. Questionnaires were distributed to prosecuting attorneys and public defenders by their supervisors. Judges were contacted in person or given questionnaires with a cover letter from the presiding judge. All questionnaires were completed anonymously and returned separately by respondents. The variables include number of years the respondent had been in the criminal justice system, preferred mode of disposition and of sentencing for each of the twelve cases, and the respondents' predictions of the probability of conviction in each case. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07808.v1 attorneys icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr courtroom proceedings icpsr disposition (legal) icpsr judges icpsr legal systems icpsr sentencing icpsr NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XII. Legal Systems Church, Thomas W. Jr. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 7808 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07808.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR09918 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s1995 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR09918 MiAaI MiAaI Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts of the United States, 1979, 1983-1985 [electronic resource] Barry Mahoney 2006-01-12 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1995 ICPSR 9918 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The purpose of this study was to examine caseflow management in order to reduce delays in urban trial courts. The data contain information from court records that reached disposition in a cross-section of urban general-jurisdiction trial courts during 1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The 1979 data files contain the baseline data for this survey. Data were gathered on civil and criminal case processing times across a broad range of courts, and changes in case processing times over a period of years were analyzed for 18 different jurisdictions: Newark, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Miami, Wayne County, Minneapolis, the Bronx, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, Dayton, Boston, Cleveland, Providence, Wichita, Detroit, Oakland, and Jersey City. The data are supplemented by information supplied by trial court administrators and presiding judges in the courts participating in the study. Data include information on the nature of the case, the dates of first and last trials, and the total number of trials and their manner of disposition. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09918.v1 case processing icpsr cities icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr trial courts icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XII. Legal Systems Mahoney, Barry Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 9918 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09918.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR25423 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2009 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR25423 MiAaI MiAaI Court Workforce Racial Diversity and Racial Justice in Criminal Case Outcomes in the United States, 2000-2005 [electronic resource] Geoff Ward , Amy Farrell , Danielle Rousseau 2009-06-25 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2009 ICPSR 25423 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The purpose of this study was to determine whether workgroup racial composition is related to sentence outcomes generally, and racial differences in sentencing in particular, across federal districts. This collection contains information on federal court district characteristics. Data include information about the social context, court context, and diversity of the courtroom workgroup for 90 federal judicial districts provided by 50 judicial district context variables. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25423.v1 case processing icpsr labor force icpsr race icpsr race relations icpsr sentencing icpsr court cases icpsr court system icpsr courtroom proceedings icpsr courts icpsr district courts icpsr federal courts icpsr judicial decisions icpsr justice icpsr NACJD IV. Court Case Processing ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System RCMD I. Crime Ward, Geoff Farrell, Amy Rousseau, Danielle Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 25423 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25423.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR09789 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s1992 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR09789 MiAaI MiAaI Effects of Cognitive Interviewing, Practice, and Interview Style on Children's Recall Performance in California, 1989-1990 [electronic resource] R. Edward Geiselman , Karen J. Saywitz , Gail K. Bornstein 2005-11-04 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 1992 ICPSR 9789 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This data collection, designed to improve the quality of children's testimony in court, evaluates how different types of interview formats affect the completeness and accuracy of children's recall performance. Specifically, the study assesses the impact of a "practice interview" about an event on the completeness and accuracy of later reports about a second, unrelated event. Three interview conditions were employed, and each condition consisted of both a practice interview and a target interview. The three conditions were RS, RC, and CC, where "R" represents a practice session with rapport-building only, "S" represents a target interview that contained all components of the standard interview procedure, and "C" represents either a practice or target interview that contained all components of the cognitive interview procedure. In rapport-building sessions, interviewers talked about school activities, family life, and favorite games with the child. In standard and cognitive interview sessions, the rapport-building sessions were followed by a request from the interviewer for the child to verbalize a narrative account of "what happened" during an event that had been previously staged by the experimenter. This narrative account was then followed by the interviewer's request for additional information about the event. Cognitive interviews also included several additional questions that were hypothesized to improve recall performance. The number of correct items recalled and the number of incorrect items generated were used to compare the performance of children in the three interview conditions. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09789.v1 children icpsr courts icpsr court cases icpsr testimony icpsr NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Geiselman, R. Edward Saywitz, Karen J. Bornstein, Gail K. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 9789 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR09789.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR32541 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2012 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR32541 MiAaI MiAaI Effects of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1995-2004 [United States] [electronic resource] James Anderson , Paul Heaton 2012-09-21 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2012 ICPSR 32541 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study measured the difference that defense counsel made to the outcome of homicide and death penalty cases. One in five indigent murder defendants in Philadelphia were randomly assigned representation by the Defender Association of Philadelphia while the remainder received court-appointed private attorneys. This study's research design utilized this random assignment to measure how defense counsel affected murder case outcomes. The research team collected data on 3,157 defendants charged with murder in Philadelphia Municipal Court between 1995-2004, using records provided by the Philadelphia Courts (First Judicial District of Pennsylvania). Data were also obtained from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System web portal, the National Corrections Reporting Program, and the 2000 Census. This study contains a total of 47 variables including public defender representation, defendant demographics, ZIP code characteristics, prior criminal history, case characteristics, case outcomes, and case handling procedures. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32541.v1 attorneys icpsr capital punishment icpsr convictions (law) icpsr court cases icpsr court system icpsr courts icpsr criminal courts icpsr criminal justice system icpsr criminal law icpsr defendants icpsr defense counsel icpsr homicide icpsr legal representation icpsr legal systems icpsr murder icpsr offenders icpsr outcome evaluation icpsr plea negotiations icpsr poverty icpsr public defenders icpsr punishment icpsr sentencing icpsr trials icpsr NACJD IV. Court Case Processing NACJD V. Courts ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System Anderson, James Heaton, Paul Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 32541 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32541.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR20461 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2008 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR20461 MiAaI MiAaI Evaluating the Impact of a Specialized Domestic Violence Police Unit in Charlotte, North Carolina, 2003-2005 [electronic resource] Paul C. Friday , Vivian Lord , M. Lyn Exum , Jennifer L. Hartman 2008-07-01 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2008 ICPSR 20461 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The specific goals of this project were (1) to assess the selection criteria used to determine the domestic violence cases for intensive intervention: what criteria are used, and what differentiates how cases are handled, (2) to track the outcomes through Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department (CMPD), Mecklenburg domestic violence court, and the Mecklenburg jail for the different methods of dealing with the cases, and (3) to provide an assessment of the relative effectiveness of a specialized domestic violence unit vis-a-vis normal patrol unit responses in terms of repeat calls, court processing, victim harm, and repeat arrests. The population from which the sample was selected consisted of all police complaint numbers for cases involving domestic violence (DV) in 2003. The unit of analysis was therefore the domestic violence incident. Cases were selected using a randomized stratified sample (stratifying by month) that also triple-sampled DV Unit cases, which generated 255 DV Unit cases for inclusion. The final sample therefore consists of 891 domestic violence cases, each involving one victim and one suspect. Within this final sample of cases, 25 percent were processed by the DV Unit. The data file contains data from multiple sources. Included from the police department's computerized database (KBCOPS) are variables pertaining to the nature of the crime, victim information and suspect information such as suspect and victim demographic data, victim/offender relationship, highest offense category, weapon usage, victim injury, and case disposition status. From police narratives come such variables as victim/offender relationship, weapon use (more refined than what is included in KBCOPS data), victim injury (also a more refined measure), and evidence collected. Variables from tracking data include information regarding the nature of the offense, the level/type of harm inflicted, and if the assault involved the same victim in the sample. Variables such as amount of jail time a suspect may have had, information pertaining to the court charges (as opposed to the charges at arrest) and case disposition status are included from court and jail data. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20461.v1 abuse icpsr violence against women icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr domestic violence icpsr evidence icpsr intimate partner violence icpsr spouse abuse icpsr victimization icpsr victims icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women NACJD X. Victimization Friday, Paul C. Lord, Vivian Exum, M. Lyn Hartman, Jennifer L. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 20461 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20461.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR25924 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2011 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR25924 MiAaI MiAaI Evaluation of a Demonstration for Enhanced Judicial Oversight of Domestic Violence Cases in Milwaukee, Wisconsin; Washtenaw County, Michigan; and Dorchester, Massachusetts; 1997-2004 [electronic resource] Adele Harrell , Jennifer Yahner , Lisa Newmark , Christy Visher 2011-04-29 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2011 ICPSR 25924 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Judicial Oversight Demonstration (JOD) was designed to test the feasibility and impact of a coordinated response to intimate partner violence (IPV) that involved the courts and justice agencies in a central role. The primary goals were to protect victim safety, hold offenders accountable, and reduce repeat offending. The two primary evaluation objectives were: (1) to test the impact of JOD interventions on victim safety, offender accountability, and recidivism, and (2) to learn from the experiences of well-qualified sites who were given resources and challenged to build a collaboration between the courts and community agencies to respond to intimate partner violence. Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, participated in a quasi-experimental evaluation of the impact of the program. IPV cases reaching disposition during the JOD were compared to similar cases reaching disposition in Lowell, Massachusetts, and Ingham County, Michigan. All IPV cases reaching disposition from approximately January 2003 to November 2004 (see Study Time Periods and Time Frames) were reviewed and included in the sample if appropriate. To be eligible for the sample, cases had to involve: (1) criminal IPV charges; (2) victims and offenders age 18 or older; and (3) victims and offenders who lived in the target jurisdiction at the time of case disposition. Cases that reached disposition more than a year after the incident were excluded to limit loss of data due to poor recall of the facts of the incident and police response. The evaluation design of JOD in Milwaukee differed from that of the other two sites. The evaluation in Milwaukee was based on a quasi-experimental comparison of offenders convicted of IPV and ordered to probation during JOD (January 1, 2001, to May 21, 2002) and before JOD (October 8, 1997, to December 21, 1999). This design was selected when early plans for an experimental design had to be abandoned and no comparable contemporaneous comparison group could be identified. Data for this evaluation were collected from court and prosecutors’ records of case and defendant characteristics, probation files on offender supervision practices, and official records of rearrest, but do not include interviews with victims or offenders. This data collection has 20 data files containing 3,578 cases and 4,092 variables. The data files contain information related to each site's Batterer Intervention Programs (Parts 1, 8, and 15), court data (Parts 2, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 18), law enforcement (Parts 3, 11, and 17), and victim data (Parts 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, and 19). The Dorchester, Massachusetts, and Washtenaw County, Michigan, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 7) include baseline and follow-up information for the offender and the victim. The data file also contains Probation Supervision Performance Reports, Victim Services Logs, and Case Incident Fact Sheet information. The Milwaukee, Wisconsin, Impact Evaluation Data (Part 20) include information related to the offender and the victim such as age, race, and sex, as well as arrest records including charges filed. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25924.v1 law enforcement icpsr victimization icpsr victims icpsr violence against women icpsr abuse icpsr battered women icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr domestic violence icpsr intimate partner violence icpsr NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women ICPSR XVII. Social Institutions and Behavior NACJD X. Victimization Harrell, Adele Yahner, Jennifer Newmark, Lisa Visher, Christy Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 25924 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR25924.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03382 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2002 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03382 MiAaI MiAaI Impact Evaluation of the Felony Domestic Violence Court in Kings County [Brooklyn], New York, 1994-2000 [electronic resource] Lisa Newmark , Mike Rempel , Kelly Diffily , Kamala Mallik Kane 2006-07-13 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2002 ICPSR 3382 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. the defendant, whether the victim attempted to drop charges, whether the victim testified at trial, whether a victim advocate was assigned, total violations during pending case, predisposition violations, and number of probation violations. Demographic variables in Part 1 include defendant and victims' gender, race, victim age at defendant's arrest, defendant's income, employment status, and education. Variables in Part 2, Top Charge Data, relating to the defendant include number and types of prior arrests and convictions, top charge at arrest, severity of top charge at arrest, top charge at grand jury indictment, severity of top charge indictment, disposition details, Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) arrest indicators, child victim conviction indicator, drug conviction indicator, weapon conviction indicator, types of probation, sentence, disposition, and offenses. Demographic variables in Part 2 include sex and race of the defendant. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03382.v2 arrest records icpsr case processing icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr domestic violence icpsr family courts icpsr felony offenses icpsr program evaluation icpsr recidivism icpsr restraining orders icpsr sentencing icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women NACJD V. Courts Newmark, Lisa Rempel, Mike Diffily, Kelly Kane, Kamala Mallik Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3382 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03382.v2 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR02310 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2000 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR02310 MiAaI MiAaI Justice Systems Processing of Child Abuse and Neglect Cases in a Local Jurisdiction (County) in the United States, 1993-1994 [electronic resource] Susan J., Wells , Andrea Sedlak 2006-03-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2000 ICPSR 2310 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The purpose of this study was to provide a comprehensive, case-level examination of the full spectrum of case processing of serious child abuse and neglect cases as they flowed through the justice process, from initial receipt of a report to final disposition in the criminal and/or civil court. This was accomplished by in-depth, detailed tracking, from a single jurisdiction, of both prospective and retrospective samples of serious child abuse cases reported to child protective services and law enforcement agencies. The four agencies that participated directly by providing case samples and case files for tracking were: (1) Child Protective Services (CPS), (2) the sheriff's office, (3) Dependency Court Legal Services (DCLS), and (4) the county prosecutor's office. Each case was abstracted at the point of sampling and then tracked throughout the other participating agencies. Data were collected over a nine-month period. Part 1, Maltreatment Abstract, Person Roster, and CPS Abstract Data, contains three types of data. First, information is provided on each maltreatment incident committed by each perpetrator, background of the perpetrator and the victim, and characteristics of the incident. The data continue with a roster of persons, which covers the relationships among the individuals in the case and whether any of these individuals were living together at the time of the maltreatment. Data from the CPS abstract include which source brought the case to the attention of Protective Services, the dates, priority, and investigation level of the report, if any prior allegations of maltreatment had occurred that involved either the same victims and/or perpetrators and, if so, information on those reports, and the perpetrator's response to the incident and level of cooperation with the investigation. For each victim, information is given on medical findings, if applicable, whether photographs were taken, whether a guardian was appointed, whether the victim was assigned an interim placement, and the CPS disposition of the case. Part 1 concludes with information on interviews with the victim, where the case was referred, the assessment of risk in the case, and whether the victim was placed in foster care. Part 2, Dependency Court Abstract Data, provides information on the case, the reason the case was closed, and the outcome as determined by the court. Part 3, Juvenile Court Schedule of Hearings Data, focuses on the schedule of hearings, such as who was present and if they were represented by an attorney, whether the hearing took place, and, if not, the reason for delay. Part 4, Law Enforcement Abstract Data, contains dates of incidents, reports, and arrests, details of the case, and how the case was handled. Part 5, State Attorney's Office Abstract Data, offers data on the case closing, charges, and sentencing, as well as information on the type of defense attorney representing the perpetrator, if a juvenile, how the defendant was referred to adult court, whether the state attorney filed cases on other perpetrators in the case, whether the victim was interviewed by the prosecutor prior to filing, and whether the victim was deposed by the state attorney after the case was filed. Part 6, Criminal Court Schedule of Hearings Data, contains information on date of arrest, filing, and court hearing, whether a public defender was assigned, number of hearings, type of hearing, and coded remarks about the hearing. Part 7, State Attorney Addendum Data, provides "no-file" data from the State Attorney Questionnaire Addendum, including if the no-file was a warrant or arrest, date of the no-file, and reason for the no-file. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02310.v1 court cases icpsr courts icpsr criminal justice system icpsr domestic relations icpsr domestic violence icpsr family histories icpsr family violence icpsr law enforcement agencies icpsr case processing icpsr child abuse icpsr child neglect icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD VI. Criminal Justice System Wells, Susan J., Sedlak, Andrea Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 2310 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR02310.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR20350 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2008 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR20350 MiAaI MiAaI Preventing Firearm Violence Among Victims of Intimate Partner Violence in North Carolina, 2003-2004 [electronic resource] Kathryn E. Moracco , Kathryn Anderson Clark , Christina Espersen , J. Michael Bowling 2008-06-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2008 ICPSR 20350 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The study examined (1) the scope and nature of firearm possession by Domestic Violence Protective Order (DVPO) defendants, (2) pre- and post-legislation experiences of firearm-related intimate partner violence (IPV) among women applying for Domestic Violence Protective Orders, (3) judges' behaviors specifying firearm-related conditions in DVPOs prior to and following the legislation, and (4) the proportion of and manner in which male DVPO defendants surrendered firearms subsequent to the enactment of the new legislation. Records were extracted for 952 adult women (age 18 and older) seeking relief from a male intimate partner by filing a civil action under North Carolina Statute Chapter 50B in Durham and Wake counties, North Carolina from February 1, 2003, to June 30, 2004, and from their male offenders. Researchers compiled data from three sources: (1) DVPO files, (2) Court Ordered Protection Evaluation (COPE) study, and (3) Criminal background checks. Variables from the DVPO files include demographic information about the plaintiff and defendant, the relationship between the plaintiff and defendant, number of children under 18 in common, incident prompting the DVPO motion, DVPO conditions requested by the plaintiff, ex parte conditions granted including firearm-related restrictions, details of DVPO hearing (e.g. date, presence of attorneys), disposition of the permanent DVPO, conditions of the DVPO, if granted, and the Civil District (CVD) number for that case. Variables from the COPE study include COPE interview information regarding the women's intimate partner violence (IPV) experiences prior to filing for the DVPO (including firearm-related IPV), whether the judge inquired about firearms during the ex parte or DVPO hearings, whether the defendant possessed firearm(s) and whether he surrendered them, women's IPV experiences post-ex parte (including firearm-related IPV), and the CVD number for that case. Variables from the criminal background check include applicable charges (assault on female, communicating threats, violation of DVPO, stalking, other domestic violence related charges, firearm charges, and concealed weapon charges), the associated offense dates, and the existence and scope of other types of charges (i.e. one or more than one additional charges), and the CVD number for that case. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20350.v1 abuse icpsr violence against women icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr domestic violence icpsr firearms icpsr intimate partner violence icpsr spouse abuse icpsr victimization icpsr victims icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women NACJD X. Victimization Moracco, Kathryn E. Clark, Kathryn Anderson Espersen, Christina Bowling, J. Michael Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 20350 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20350.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR28861 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2011 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR28861 MiAaI MiAaI Reducing Courts' Failure to Appear Rate [electronic resource] A Procedural Justice Approach [Nebraska Statewide, Select Counties, 2009-2010] Brian H. Bornstein , Alan J. Tomkins , Elizabeth M. Neeley 2011-06-22 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2011 ICPSR 28861 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The purpose of the study was to examine the effectiveness of using different kinds of written reminders to reduce misdemeanants' failure to appear (FTA) rates. The study examined the problem of FTA via a two-stage experiment. In Phase 1, 7,865 misdemeanor defendants from 14 Nebraska counties were randomly assigned to one of four reminder conditions: (1) a no-reminder (control) condition; (2) a reminder-only condition; (3) a condition in which the reminder also made them aware of possible sanctions should they fail to appear (reminder-sanctions); or (4) a condition in which the reminder mentioned sanctions but also highlighted aspects of procedural justice (PJ), such as voice, neutrality, respect, and public interest (reminder-combined). Data collection began in March 2009 and continued through May 2010. Files were received daily from the Nebraska Administrative Office of the Courts containing information about cases filed in each of the 14 counties included in the study. Upon receipt of this file, researchers screened participants using certain eligibility criteria. Researchers mailed postcard reminders two to five business days prior to the scheduled court appearance. Approximately one week after each scheduled court appearance researchers accessed the courts' administrative database (JUSTICE) to determine whether the defendant actually appeared for the scheduled hearing. Upon accessing this information, researchers recorded this variable, which is the primary dependent variable in the study. At the same time researchers recorded the appearance variable, they selected participants for Phase 2 of the study -- a mail survey administered after their scheduled appearance (or non-appearance) to assess their perceptions of procedural fairness and their level of trust/confidence in the courts. To do so, researchers selected all participants who failed to appear for their court date to receive a survey. Twenty percent of defendants who did appear were also randomly selected to receive a survey. Surveys were sent to a total of 2,360 individuals and were received from a total of 452 defendants. The study contains a total of 197 variables including demographics, court appearance characteristics, experiment characteristics, charge/offense variables, and variables from surveys about experiences with the court system. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28861.v1 case processing icpsr court cases icpsr court system icpsr courts icpsr criminal courts icpsr criminal justice policy icpsr criminal justice system icpsr failure to appear icpsr justice icpsr legal proceedings icpsr offense classification icpsr procedural justice icpsr trust in government icpsr misdemeanor offenses icpsr NACJD IV. Court Case Processing ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System Bornstein, Brian H. Tomkins, Alan J. Neeley, Elizabeth M. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 28861 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR28861.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03076 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2001 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03076 MiAaI MiAaI Response to Domestic Violence in the Quincy, Massachusetts, District Court, 1995-1997 [electronic resource] Eve Buzawa , Gerald T. Hotaling , Andrew Klein , James Byrne 2001-08-06 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2001 ICPSR 3076 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The Quincy, Massachusetts, District Court initiated an aggressive, pro-intervention strategy for dealing with domestic violence cases in 1986. This study was funded to examine the workings of this court and its impact on the lives of victims. The four main goals of the research were: (1) to describe the workings of the primary components of this model jurisdiction in its response to domestic violence, specifically (a) what the police actually did when called to a domestic violence incident, (b) decisions made by the prosecutor's office and the court in their handling of these incidents, (c) how many victims talked to a victim advocate, and (d) how many offenders received batterer treatment and/or were incarcerated, (2) to describe the types of incidents, victims, and offenders seen in a full enforcement jurisdiction to determine if the types of cases coming to attention in such a setting looked similar to cases reported in studies from other jurisdictions, (3) to interview victims to hear directly about their experiences with a model court, and (4) to examine how well this model jurisdiction worked in preventing revictimization. Data used in this study were based on domestic violence cases that resulted in an arrest and arraignment before the Quincy District Court (QDC) during a seven-month study period. Six types of data were collected for this study: (1) The offender's criminal history prior to the study and for one year subsequent to the study incident were provided by the QDC's Department of Probation from the Massachusetts Criminal Records System Board. (2) Civil restraining order data were provided by the Department of Probation from a statewide registry of civil restraining orders. (3) Data on prosecutorial charges for up to three domestic violence-related charges were provided by the Department of Probation. (4) Data on defendants who attended batterer treatment programs were provided by directors of two such programs that served the QDC. (5) Police incident reports from the seven departments served by the QDC were used to measure the officer's perspective and actions taken relating to each incident, what the call for service involved, characteristics of the incident, socio-demographics of the participants, their narrative descriptions of the incident, and their stated response. (6) Interviews with victims were conducted one year after the occurrence of the study incident. Variables from administrative records include date and location of incident, number of suspects, age and race of victims and offenders, use of weapons, injuries, witnesses, whether there was an existing restraining order and its characteristics, charges filed by police, number and gender of police officers responding to the incident, victim's state at the time of the incident, offender's criminal history, and whether the offender participated in batterer treatment. The victim survey collected data on the victim's education and employment status, current living arrangement, relationship with offender, how the victim responded to the incident, how afraid the victim was, victim's opinions of police and the prosecutor, victim's sense of control, satisfaction with the court, victim's past violent relationships and child sexual abuse, victim's opinions on what the criminal justice system could do to stop abuse, and whether the victim obtained a restraining order. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03076.v1 case processing icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr domestic violence icpsr imprisonment icpsr offenders icpsr police response icpsr treatment programs icpsr victims icpsr NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD V. Courts Buzawa, Eve Hotaling, Gerald T. Klein, Andrew Byrne, James Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3076 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03076.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR03790 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2003 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR03790 MiAaI MiAaI Revictimization and Victim Satisfaction in Domestic Violence Cases Processed in the Quincy, Massachusetts, District Court, 1995-1997 [electronic resource] Gerald Hotaling , Eve S. Buzawa 2003-10-30 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2003 ICPSR 3790 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. This study sought to examine (1) the occurrence of revictimization, (2) the impact of case processing in Quincy District Court (QDC) on the disclosure of revictimization, and (3) victim satisfaction with various components of the criminal justice system. This study was undertaken as part of a secondary analysis of data originally collected for a National Institute of Justice (NIJ) sponsored evaluation of a "model" domestic violence program located in Quincy, Massachusetts (RESPONSE TO DOMESTIC VIOLENCE IN THE QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS, DISTRICT COURT, 1995-1997 [ICPSR 3076]). Administrative records data were collected from the Quincy District Court's Department of Probation, two batterer treatment programs servicing offenders, and police incident reports, as well as survey data administered to victims. Included are criminal history data, records of civil restraining orders, probation department data on prosecutorial charges, case disposition and risk assessment information, data on offender treatment program participation, police incident reports, and self-report victim survey data. These data were collected with three primary goals: (1) to obtain the victim's point of view about what she wanted from the criminal justice system, and how the criminal justice system responded to the domestic violence incident in which she was involved, (2) to get details about the study incidents and the context of the victim-offender relationship that are not typically available in official statistics, and (3) to hear directly from victims about the defendant's reoffending behavior. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03790.v1 case processing icpsr court cases icpsr courts icpsr domestic violence icpsr offenders icpsr police response icpsr treatment programs icpsr victim services icpsr victimization icpsr victims icpsr NACJD X. Victimization ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD XIII. Violence Against Women Hotaling, Gerald Buzawa, Eve S. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 3790 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR03790.v1 nmm 22 4500 ICPSR20366 MiAaI m f a u cr mn mmmmuuuu 130523s2008 miu f a eng d (MiAaI)ICPSR20366 MiAaI MiAaI Understanding Court Culture and Improving Court Performance in 12 Courts in California, Florida, and Minnesota, 2002 [electronic resource] Brian J. Ostrom , Charles W. Ostrom , Roger A. Hanson , Matthew Kleiman 2008-08-25 Ann Arbor, Mich. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor] 2008 ICPSR 20366 Numeric Title from ICPSR DDI metadata of 2013-05-23. AVAILABLE. This study is freely available to the general public. Also available as downloadable files. The purpose of this study was to examine the organizational culture in 12 felony criminal trial courts selected in 3 states and to gauge prosecuting and public defender attorneys' views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. Data on organizational culture in each of the 12 courts (Part 1) were obtained by administering the Court Culture Assessment Instrument (CCAI) to all judges with a felony criminal court docket and to all senior court administrators. A total of 224 respondents completed the questionnaire. Additionally, surveys were conducted of prosecuting attorneys (Part 2) and public defender attorneys (Part 3) to gauge their views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. A total of 334 prosecuting attorneys and 260 public defense attorneys completed the 46-item trial court process survey. Part 1 contains 40 variables pertaining to 5 dimensions of current and preferred court culture. Variables in Part 2 and Part 3 each include seven items from a jurisdictional practice scale, eight items from a procedural fairness scale, seven items from a resource scale, nine items from a management scale, nine items from a practitioner competence scale, and six items from a court access scale. Cf.: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20366.v1 administration icpsr felony courts icpsr judges icpsr management styles icpsr organizational behavior icpsr organizational culture icpsr organizational structure icpsr prosecuting attorneys icpsr public defenders icpsr trial courts icpsr administrators icpsr attorneys icpsr case management icpsr case processing icpsr court cases icpsr court system icpsr courts icpsr criminal courts icpsr ICPSR XVII.E. Social Institutions and Behavior, Crime and the Criminal Justice System NACJD IV. Court Case Processing Ostrom, Brian J. Ostrom, Charles W. Hanson, Roger A. Kleiman, Matthew Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research. ICPSR (Series) 20366 Access restricted ; authentication may be required: http://dx.doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR20366.v1