Search results

Showing 1 – 25 of 25 results.

Curated

Alaska Plea Bargaining Study, 1974-1976 (ICPSR 7714)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Alaska

Time period: 1974-01-01--1976-01-01

This study examines the characteristics of criminal offenders as they affect the primary outcomes of their court cases, particularly plea bargaining decisions. The study was conducted in Anchorage, Juneau, and Fairbanks, Alaska, over a two-year period from August 1974 to August 1976. The data were collected from police booking sheets, public fingerprint files, and court dockets. The unit of observation is the felony case, i.e., a single felony charge against a single defendant. Each unit of data contains information about both the defendant and the charge. The variables include demographic and social characteristics of the offender, criminal history of the offender, nature of the offense, evidence, victim characteristics, and administrative factors related to the disposition of the case.

Curated

The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision-making for Cases Processed by Offices in One Northern County and One Southern County, 2007-2010 (ICPSR 32542)

Released/updated on: 2016-04-21

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2009-01-01--2011-06-01, 2007-01-01--2009-07-01, 2010-10-01--2011-03-01

Prosecuting attorneys enjoy broad discretion in making decisions that influence criminal case outcomes. This study examines the impact of legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal factors on case outcomes throughout the prosecutorial process. It then examines how prosecutors weigh these factors in their decision making and explores the formal and informal mechanisms that constrain or regulate prosecutors' decision-making.

The study examines case screening decisions, charging decisions, plea offers, sentence recommendations, and dismissals in two moderately large county prosecutors' offices. It includes statistical analyses of actual case outcomes, responses to a standardized set of hypothetical cases, and responses to a survey of prosecutors' opinions and priorities, as well as qualitative analyses of two waves of individual interviews and focus groups. It addresses the following questions:

How did prosecutors define and apply the concepts of justice and fairness?
What factors were associated with prosecutorial outcomes at each stage?
How did prosecutors interpret and weigh different case-specific factors in making decisions at each stage?
How did contextual factors constrain or regulate prosecutorial decision making?
How consistent were prosecutors' decisions across similar cases? What case-level and contextual factors influenced the degree of consistency?

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Assessing the Impact of Plea Bargaining on Subsequent Violence for Firearm Offenders, Maryland, 2015-2019 (ICPSR 39244)

Released/updated on: 2025-01-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Maryland

Time period: 2015-01-01--2019-01-01

The purpose of this study was to assess how patterns of prosecution and plea bargaining in firearms cases shape subsequent case and defendant outcomes. Drawing on recent work (Johnson and Larroulet, 2019), the researchers developed measures of plea bargaining discounts and examined their effects on sentencing and recidivism for firearms-involved offenders. To do so, the investigators [1] analyzed unique data collected by the Client Legal Utility Engine (CLUE), a web-scraped database of court records for all criminal cases in the State of Maryland for a cohort of defendants charged with firearms-involved crimes in district and circuit courts between 2015 and 2019; [2] generated estimates of the average distance traveled in charge bargaining, or the magnitude of average sentencing discounts in gun cases in Maryland by comparing expected sentences based on the original filed charges to the final charges at conviction; and [3] explored the association between plea discounts and recidivism, measured by the defendant coming back into the criminal court system on new criminal charges. The resulting dataset includes information on criminal case processing outcomes for firearms-related cases processed in Maryland district and circuit courts for the time period 2015-2019.

Curated

Charging and Sentencing Decisions Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Three District Study, 1998-2000 (ICPSR 31141)

Released/updated on: 2012-09-12

Geographic coverage: Iowa, United States, Minnesota, Nebraska

Time period: 1998-01-01--2000-01-01

The Charging and Sentencing Decisions Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: A Three District Study, 1998-2000 looks at federal sentencing practices and outcomes at the district level and uses quantitative and qualitative research techniques to describe and analyze charging, plea bargaining, and sentencing policies, practices, and outcomes. This research studies three United States District Courts: the District of Nebraska, the District of Minnesota, and the Southern District of Iowa. The primary objectives of this study are: (1) to test for inter-district disparity in sentencing; (2) to describe charging and plea bargaining practices and to identify the predictors of charging and plea bargaining decisions; and (3) to examine the effect of offender and case characteristics on sentence outcomes at the district level. Detailed data on the offender, the case, and the sentence was obtained from the USSC's Offender Datafile for each district for each year. Data was supplemented with information contained in the Presentence Investigation Report, the Sentencing Recommendation, the Order of Judgment, and other documents provided by each United States District Court. Judges, attorneys, and probation officers in each district were interviewed. This dataset includes basic demographic variables such as race, age, sex, marital status, and education level. Other data obtained includes substance use, offense type, criminal charges, physical and mental health treatment, and court and trial proceeding information.

Curated

Civil Litigation in the United States, 1977-1979 (ICPSR 7994)

Released/updated on: 1994-02-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1977-01-01--1979-01-01

The Civil Litigation Research Project, based at the University of Wisconsin Law School, was organized in 1979 to develop a large database on dispute processing and litigation and to collect information on the costs of civil litigation. Data were gathered on topics such as negotiation proceedings, relationship between lawyer and client, and organizations' influence on the outcome of a dispute.

Curated

Comparing Court Case Processing in Nine Courts, 1979-1980 (ICPSR 8621)

Released/updated on: 1992-02-16

Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1979-01-01--1980-01-01

This study looks at the characteristics of officials who are involved in court case processing. Data were collected on the cases and defendants, the officials involved in the cases, personality characteristics of the officials and the perceptions that these officials have of each other.

Curated

Dynamics of Change in the Criminal Case Plea Bargaining System: New York City, 1800-1890 (ICPSR 6501)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1800-01-01--1890-01-01

This study analyzes the ascendancy of a single form of dispute processing--the guilty plea--in New York City's principal indictment court, and its connection to law enforcement, judges, and lawyers. A major component of the study is a statistical analysis of data presented in the Minute Book of Court of General Sessions and maintained at the New York City Archives. A second data source is the New York City district attorney's case files, also maintained at the New York City Archives. Part 1, District Attorney Case File Data, contains a sample of cases throughout the century taken from the district attorney's files. Variables cover charge filed, method of arrest, nature of testimony, presence of the lawyers, role of police, private prosecutor, and magistrate, and demographic information about the defendant and victim. Part 2, Lawyer Data, records the frequency of the appearance of individual lawyers, the charges in the cases in which they appeared, the lawyering activities they undertook, and the method of case disposition. Part 3, Minute Book Data, reflects the workday of the Court of General Sessions, including the number of cases processed in court on any given day, the number of defendants tried, the details of charges, joinder, witness examinations, outcome and sentence, and the number pleading guilty. Part 4, Cases Tried Data, not only records cases tried but also includes the top count, legal representation, result, and sentence, and for cases pleading guilty contains the top count charged, top count accepted, and sentence imposed. District Attorney Reference Data, Part 5, contains cases in which copies of the district attorney's papers were not found. These cases occurred on the same day as cases for which copies of the district attorney's papers were recorded. This data served as a control group for the District Attorney Case File Data.

Curated

Effects of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1995-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 32541)

Released/updated on: 2012-09-21

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1994-01-01--2005-01-01

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.

Curated

Ethnicity and Homicide in California, 1850-1900 (ICPSR 9594)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1850-01-01--1900-01-01

This data collection explores the relationship between homicide and ethnicity in California during 1850-1900. The data are presented in three files. Part 1, Homicide, includes information on time, place, location, and cause of the crime for all murder cases in seven California counties. The relationship between the victim and the accused, and the race, sex, age, and occupation of each are also provided. Part 2, Indictment, includes information on criminal charge, plea, verdict, and sentence for all murder trials in the same seven counties during the time period. Part 3 provides information on all prisoners incarcerated in California for murder. Included are age, sex, ethnicity, place of birth, and occupation of each prisoner, as well as sentence, disposition of case, years served, and year in which the prisoner was released.

Curated

Evaluation of Minnesota's Felony Sentencing Guidelines, 1978-1984 (ICPSR 9235)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota

This data collection gauges the effects of the Minnesota felony sentencing guidelines on prosecutional charging practices, plea negotiations, and sentencing decisions. The collection provides primary sources for evaluating the statewide changes in the determinants of charging and sentencing decisions after the sentencing guidelines were enacted. The statewide defendants file (Part 2) contains information on the offender's demographic characteristics (age, sex, race, and marital and employment status), year of disposition, descriptions of the convicted offense, criminal history score, type of sentence imposed, the presumptive disposition and duration of confinement, dispositional location in the sentencing grid of the guidelines, and types of dispositional departure from presumptive sentences. Variables in the eight-county sample data (Part 1) are similar to those available in the statewide data. However, the county sample data contain additional information on characteristics of cases and case processing variables such as whether the defendant was convicted of multiple behavioral incidents and various types of plea bargaining.

Curated

Evaluation of Pre-Trial Settlement Conference: Dade County, Florida, Criminal Court, 1979 (ICPSR 7710)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Florida

This study reports on the implementation in Dade County, Florida, of a proposal to involve, on a voluntary basis, victims, defendants, and police in a judicial plea negotiation conference. The study was supported by a grant from the National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, United States Department of Justice. Parts 1-3, Defendants, Victims, and Police files, consist of responses to questionnaires given to defendants, victims, and police. The questionnaires were administered during 20-minute interviews, conducted after the case had been completed. The interview instruments were designed to collect data on three major issues: (1) the extent to which respondents reported participation in the processing of their cases, (2) respondents' knowledge of the way their cases were processed, and (3) respondents' attitudes toward the disposition of their cases and toward the criminal justice system. Part 4 is the Conference Data File. During the pretrial settlement conference, an observer wrote down in sequence as much as possible of the verbal behavior. After the session, the observer made some subjective ratings, provided descriptive data about the conclusion of the session, and classified comments into one of the following categories: (1) Facts of the Case, (2) Prior Record, (3) Law and Practices, (4) Maximum Sentence, (5) Prediction of Trial Outcome, (6) Conference Precedent, (7) Personal Background History, and (8) Recommendations. Information in Part 5, the Case Information Data File, was drawn from court records and includes type of case, number of charges, sentence type, sentence severity (stated and perceived), seriousness of offense, date of arrest, date of arraignment, date of conference, prior incarcerations, and defendant background.

Curated

Restricted

Exploring the Reach of Evidence Outside the Jury Box [United States], 2005-2011 (ICPSR 34679)

Released/updated on: 2016-05-20

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01, 2005-01-01--2006-01-01

These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.

The purpose of the study was to compare how the quantity versus the quality of evidence influences the likelihood of trial convictions and plea decisions and examine whether evidence has differential impacts on the perceived likelihood of trial convictions and plea values. In Phase I (Phase I Data, n=2,593) defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges, representing all 50 states and the District of Columbia, completed an online survey of a hypothetical legal case in which the presence of three types of evidence (confession, eyewitness, and DNA) and length of defendant criminal history were manipulated. In Phase II (Phase II Data, n=502), researchers worked with two District Attorneys' offices in New York state to code the contents of case files. Researchers coded 502 closed cases from 2005 and 2006, all of which originated as felony arrests. Researchers also obtained criminal history record information on the defendants involved in the cases.

Curated

Partially restricted

Influence of Eyewitness Memory Factors on Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys in California, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 32181)

Released/updated on: 2012-07-31

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01

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.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1990 (ICPSR 9579)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1988-01-01--1990-01-01

This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1989-1990. Questions regarding the prefiling, filing, and pretrial stages of felony prosecution asked about policies limiting the time for plea negotiations, the role of the grand jury, how felony cases were screened, and the amount of time that usually elapsed before the prosecutor was notified of persons arrested for a felony. Prosecutors were also asked to report the percentage of court case filings by grand jury indictment, by information following a preliminary hearing, or by other means, and the percentage of felony cases processed by a court of general jurisdiction, a felony court, or other court(s). The trial stage of felony prosecution was covered by questions about the conduct of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, limits on time allowed to commence trial, the number of permitted peremptory challenges, who was responsible for notifying government witnesses to appear in court, whether the prosecution had the right to request a jury trial, whether the jurisdiction's felony court discouraged motions on trial date that would delay trial, and whether the felony court normally granted a continuance on trial date to permit additional time for plea negotiations. Questions on felony sentencing and appeals asked whether the prosecutor was usually present at felony sentence proceedings, whether the judge usually ordered a presentence report, whether victim information was requested or provided by the court, whether the prosecutor normally recommended a type or duration of sentence to be imposed, whether police, victims, or witnesses were notified of the disposition of felony cases, whether the prosecutor was involved in various types of appellate work, and whether the prosecutor had any right of appeal from rulings on motions, from sentences, and from determination of guilt or innocence. General information gathered by the survey includes the number of jurisdictions contained in the prosecutorial district, the number of attorneys and investigators employed in the sampled jurisdiction and in the prosecutorial district as a whole, the length of the prosecutor's term of office, the number of law enforcement agencies that brought arrests into the jurisdiction's court, how much of the prosecutor's felony caseload was assigned on a vertical basis, the kinds of nonfelony matters the prosecutor had responsibility for or jurisdiction over (e.g., family and domestic relations, mental commitments, environmental protection, traffic, etc.), whether the office of prosecutor was an elective position, and whether it was a full- or part-time position. Other general items include whether any felony defendants were provided an attorney on the grounds of indigency, whether, in criminal cases involving both state and federal jurisdiction, the prosecutor would ordinarily be cross-designated to represent the prosecutor in both courts, whether the prosecutor's office contained a "career criminal" unit, whether the state's attorney general was entitled to try cases in the jurisdiction's felony court, which types of criminal history data normally were of practical value in felony prosecution, and who supervised the probationer in most cases of adult felons sentenced to probation.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1992 (ICPSR 6273)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1991-07-01--1992-06-30

This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1991 and 1992. Some items included in an earlier survey, NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1990 (ICPSR 9579), were repeated, covering topics such as new methods of prosecution, new kinds of evidence, use of criminal history data, general workload statistics, funding, plea negotiations, sentencing of intermediate sanctions, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, criminal defense of indigents, and the use of lower courts and grand juries. New areas of concern in 1992 included staffing, turnover, recruitment, new kinds of felonies, problem cases, scientific evidence, computerization, staff training, drug testing, and the personal risks associated with the role of prosecutor. Demographic data include sex, race, and ethnic composition of current staff members.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1994 (ICPSR 6785)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31

The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1992 (ICPSR 6273), and also added queries on topics of current concern, including: cross-designation of state prosecutors to try cases in federal court, juvenile transfers to criminal court, personal liability insurance for prosecutors, and involvement with community-based drug abuse programs. Variables include whether certain categories of felony prosecution, such as gangs, hate crimes, domestic violence, stalking, fraud, or child abuse or abduction were handled, whether DNA evidence, videotape, expert or child witnesses, polygraph tests, or wiretap evidence were used in trials, types of intermediate sanctions used, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, work release, substance abuse rehabilitation or therapy, community service, and fines or restitution, information on problem cases, personal risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, civil actions against prosecutors, criminal defense of indigent offenders, staffing, workload, funding, whether the defendant's criminal history was used in trials, juvenile matters, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, computerization, and community leadership. The unit of analysis is the district office.

Curated

Partially restricted

National Prosecutors Survey, 1996 (ICPSR 2433)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1996-01-01--1996-12-31

Curated

National Prosecutors Survey, 2005 (ICPSR 4600)

Released/updated on: 2007-02-23

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2005-01-01--2005-12-31

Curated

National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2001 (ICPSR 3418)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The National Survey of Prosecutors is a survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. It was previously conducted in 1990, 1992, 1994, and 1996 (ICPSR 9579, 6273, 6785, 2433 respectively). For 2001, instead of a survey of chief prosecutors, a census of all 2,341 chief prosecutors who handled felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction was conducted. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The census' purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. Variables cover staffing, funding, special categories of felony prosecutions, caseload, juvenile matters, work-related threats or assaults, the use of DNA evidence, and community-related activities, such as involvement in neighborhood associations. The unit of analysis is the district office.

Curated

National Prosecutors Survey [Census], 2007 (ICPSR 33202)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-14

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31

The 2007 Census of State Court Prosecutors marked the second BJS survey of all prosecutors' offices in the United States. The first census, conducted in 2001, included the 2,341 offices in operation at that time. The second census included the 2,330 state court prosecutors' offices operating in 2007. Neither census included offices of municipal attorneys or county attorneys, who primarily operate in courts of limited jurisdiction. State court prosecutors serve in the executive branch of state governments and handle felony cases in state courts of general jurisdiction. By law, these prosecutors are afforded broad discretion in determining who is charged with an offense and whether a case goes to trial. The chief prosecutor, also referred to as the district attorney, county attorney, commonwealth attorney, or state's attorney, represents the state in criminal cases and is answerable to the public as an elected or appointed public official. The Office of the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia is the only federal prosecutor included in the census. This unique office is responsible for prosecution of serious local crimes committed in the District and also for prosecution of federal cases, whether criminal or civil.

Curated

National Survey of Judges and Court Practitioners, 1991 (ICPSR 9837)

Released/updated on: 2000-10-27

Geographic coverage: United States

The United States Sentencing Commission, established by the 98th Congress, is an independent agency in the judicial branch of government. The Commission's primary function is to institute guidelines that prescribe the appropriate form and severity of punishment for offenders convicted of federal crimes. This survey was developed in response to issues that arose during site visits conducted in conjunction with an implementation study of sentencing guidelines and was intended to supplement the information obtained in the more extensive site visit interviews. Topics include the impact of the plea agreement, departures by the court, mandatory minimum sentences, the general issue of unwarranted sentencing disparity, and whether this disparity had increased, decreased, or stayed about the same since the sentencing guidelines were imposed in 1987.

Curated

Operation Hardcore [Crime] Evaluation: Los Angeles, 1976-1980 (ICPSR 9038)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California

Time period: 1976-01-01--1980-01-01

This evaluation was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office to examine the effectiveness of specialized prosecutorial activities in dealing with the local problem of rising gang violence, in particular the special gang prosecution unit Operation Hardcore. One part of the evaluation was a system performance analysis. The purposes of this system performance analysis were (1) to describe the problems of gang violence in Los Angeles and the ways that incidents of gang violence were handled by the Los Angeles criminal justice system, and (2) to document the activities of Operation Hardcore and its effect on the criminal justice system's handling of the cases prosecuted by that unit. Computer-generated listings from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office of all individuals referred for prosecution by local police agencies were used to identify those individuals who were subsequently prosecuted by the District Attorney. Data from working files on all cases prosecuted, including copies of police, court, and criminal history records as well as information on case prosecution, were used to describe criminal justice handling. Information from several supplementary sources was also included, such as the automated Prosecutors Management Information System (PROMIS) maintained by the District Attorney's Office, and court records from the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County, the local felony court.

Curated

Performance Measures in Prosecution and Their Application to Community Prosecution at Two Sites in the United States, 2005-2006 (ICPSR 20401)

Released/updated on: 2008-10-31

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2005-01-01--2006-09-01

The purpose of this study was to explore empirical evidence to support the performance measurement framework identified by the American Prosecutors Research Institute's (APRI) Prosecution Study for the 21st Century. The framework included promoting the fair, impartial, and expeditious pursuit of justice and ensuring public safety. Two prosecutors' offices participated in the study. One was a traditional office, and the other was a more community-oriented office. Each site submitted monthly data on the identified performance measures for analysis. APRI also designed and administered a public safety survey to assess a number of factors related to the performance of prosecutors' offices, but for which data could not be provided by the offices. The public safety surveys were administered by phone using random digit dialing (RDD). Part 1, Site 1 Administrative Data, contains 15 months of data, and Part 2, Site 2 Administrative Data, contain 6 months of data on the identified performance measures for analysis from each site. Part 3, Public Safety Survey Data, contains variables that provide some basic demographic data about the respondents and several variables in response to Likert-style questions measuring attitudes and opinions on six factors. These include the seriousness of local crime, safety of the environment, organizational behavior of the prosecutor's office, participation in the community, community education, and task performance.

Curated

Plea Bargaining in the United States, 1978 (ICPSR 7775)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States

This study was conducted in 1978 at the Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure of the Georgetown University Law Center. The study consists of three files. The first contains information from 3,397 case files in six United States cities. The 63 variables include demographic information on the accused and the victim, past record of the accused, seriousness of the offense, pleas entered, speed of trial process, and sentencing. The second file contains information gathered from in-court observations focused on the formal supervision of plea bargaining by judges. There are approximately 33 variables for each of the 711 court observations. The third file consists of the results of a plea bargaining simulation game. There are 17 variables for each of the 479 cases in the file.

Curated

Prosecutorial Discretion and Plea Bargaining in Federal Criminal Courts in the United States, 1983-1990 (ICPSR 9844)

Released/updated on: 2000-06-05

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1983-07-01--1990-08-01

The primary purpose of this data collection was to study whether prosecutorial behavior was affected by the implementation of federal criminal sentencing guidelines in 1987. Monthly time series data were constructed on a number of prosecutorial outcomes, representing either discrete decision steps in the processing of criminal cases or the characteristics of cases that passed through the system. Variables include disposition year and month, number of matters initiated, number of cases filed, declined, and dismissed, number of convictions by trial, by jury, and by bench trial, number of guilty pleas, ratio of guilty pleas to cases resolved, and ratio of trials to cases resolved. The collection also provides a series of dichotomous variables to assess the impact of various events on prosecutorial outcomes over time. These events include the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (effective November 1986), implementation of the sentencing guidelines (November 1987), Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988 (November 1988), United States Supreme Court's decision in the Minstretta case affirming the constitutionality of the sentencing guidelines (January 1989), and Attorney General Thornburgh's memo outlining Justice Department policy on charging and prosecution (March 1989).