Influence of Eyewitness Memory Factors on Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys in California, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 32181)
Version Date: Jul 31, 2012 View help for published
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s)
Kathy Pezdek, Claremont Graduate University
https://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32181.v1
Version V1
Summary View help for Summary
The purpose of the study was to assess how the strength of eyewitness evidence affects plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Surveys were administered to 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California. On the questionnaire, each participant was asked four background questions and read four versions of a crime scenario in which two specific eyewitness factors -- (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not -- were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. The scenarios described a store robbery in which identification by one eyewitness was the only evidence against the defendant. After reading each scenario, attorneys were asked to respond to five questions in light of the facts presented. The study contains 28 variables including background data on the study participants and responses to questions relating to four crime scenarios that differ in terms of the details of the eyewitness evidence.
Citation View help for Citation
Export Citation:
Funding View help for Funding
Subject Terms View help for Subject Terms
Geographic Coverage View help for Geographic Coverage
Smallest Geographic Unit View help for Smallest Geographic Unit
Anonymized county
Restrictions View help for Restrictions
Access to these BJS-sponsored data is restricted. Users interested in obtaining these data must complete a NACJD Restricted Data Use Agreement available from the ResearchDataGov website, specify the reasons for the request, and obtain IRB approval or notice of exemption for their research.
Restricted Data Use Agreements available on the NACJD website are provided for reference only. Please visit the ResearchDataGov website to download the appropriate Restricted Data Use Agreement and submit your request. Once approved, data may be accessed from a requester secure site via ICPSR's secure download procedures.
Distributor(s) View help for Distributor(s)
Time Period(s) View help for Time Period(s)
Date of Collection View help for Date of Collection
Study Purpose View help for Study Purpose
The purpose of the study was to assess how the strength of eyewitness evidence affects plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys.
Study Design View help for Study Design
Surveys were administered to 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California. On the questionnaire, each participant was asked four background questions and read four versions of a crime scenario (counterbalanced across participants for order of presentation) in which two specific eyewitness factors -- (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not -- were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. Specifically, the study design was a two (prosecutor versus defense attorney) by two (familiar versus unfamiliar suspect) by two (same-race versus cross-race identification) mixed factor design with only the first factor varied between subjects. The scenarios described a store robbery in which identification by one eyewitness was the only evidence against the defendant. The four scenarios were identical except for the slight wording changes required to vary the familiarity condition (the eyewitness had seen the suspect previously or this was not mentioned) and the cross-race condition. After reading each scenario, attorneys were asked to respond to five questions in light of the facts presented. Participants were given the option to complete the test materials online or using hard copies; most used the hard copy option.
Sample View help for Sample
This study utilized a convenience sample; the data were collected from county offices of the District Attorney and Public Defender in the state of California. Because the questionnaire included questions about sentencing, and sentencing guidelines vary by state in the United States, it was necessary to restrict data collection to one state. In the data collection phase, over a period of 18-months, email, telephone, and postal mail were used to contact repeatedly, the head District Attorney and Public Defender in each of the 58 counties in California, to request the participation of the Deputy District Attorneys and Deputy Public Defenders in their county. Only the data from counties in which there were completed test materials from both the offices of the District Attorney and the Public Defender were included in this study. This was done to match the two samples, at least in terms of the counties in which they served. These included 8 counties, contributing a total of 93 Deputy Public Defenders and 46 District Attorneys. Within each county, it was simply required that each participant had had felony trial experience.
Time Method View help for Time Method
Universe View help for Universe
All Deputy District Attorneys and Deputy Public Defenders in the state of California between February 2010 and June 2011.
Unit(s) of Observation View help for Unit(s) of Observation
Data Source View help for Data Source
Surveys administered to prosecutors and defense attorneys in the state of California between February 2010 and June 2011.
Data Type(s) View help for Data Type(s)
Mode of Data Collection View help for Mode of Data Collection
Description of Variables View help for Description of Variables
The study contains 28 variables including background data on the study participants and responses to questions relating to four crime scenarios that differ in terms of the details of the eyewitness evidence. Background variables include attorney type (public defender or prosecutor), number of years as a trial attorney, number of cases tried, number of cases involving eyewitness cases, and percent of cases typically settled through plea bargaining. Variables from the crime scenarios measure whether the respondents would plea bargain the case, the lowest/highest plea bargain they would offer/accept, and their estimate of the probability that the defendant was guilty and the probability that they would win the case if it went to trial.
Response Rates View help for Response Rates
Response rate information is not available.
Presence of Common Scales View help for Presence of Common Scales
The data include variables that use a continuous response scale from 0 percent to 100 percent and variables that use a response scale of 7 potential plea bargain offers ranging from "No plea" to "One strike 5-years".
HideOriginal Release Date View help for Original Release Date
2012-07-31
Version History View help for Version History
- Pezdek, Kathy. Influence of Eyewitness Memory Factors on Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys in California, 2010-2011. ICPSR32181-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2012-07-31. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR32181.v1
2012-07-31 ICPSR data undergo a confidentiality review and are altered when necessary to limit the risk of disclosure. ICPSR also routinely creates ready-to-go data files along with setups in the major statistical software formats as well as standard codebooks to accompany the data. In addition to these procedures, ICPSR performed the following processing steps for this data collection:
- Standardized missing values.
- Performed recodes and/or calculated derived variables.
- Checked for undocumented or out-of-range codes.
Notes
The public-use data files in this collection are available for access by the general public. Access does not require affiliation with an ICPSR member institution.
One or more files in this data collection have special restrictions. Restricted data files are not available for direct download from the website; click on the Restricted Data button to learn more.