Showing 1 – 30 of 30 results.
Curated
ABC News Jury Charge Poll, September 1995 (ICPSR 6674)
Released/updated on: 2006-11-14
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll sought respondents' views on the O.J. Simpson murder trial and on the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system. Those queried were asked for their opinions on the fairness of the Simpson trial, the innocence or guilt of Simpson, media coverage of the Simpson case, and whether there was a police conspiracy to frame Simpson. Respondents were asked whether they believed that Detective Mark Furhman found the bloody glove as he testified. Demographic variables include sex and race.
Curated
ABC News O.J. Simpson Jury Poll, February 1997 (ICPSR 2174)
Released/updated on: 2008-04-04
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll, fielded February 4, 1997, sought respondents' views on the O.J. Simpson civil trial verdict and the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system. Respondents were asked for their opinions on the civil trial decision, which found Simpson responsible for the deaths of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman. Those queried were asked to consider the possible reasons for the different verdicts in the criminal and civil trials including differing legal definitions of guilt, the number of jurors required for a guilty verdict, the testimony and evidence allowed, the testimony of Simpson, and the racial demographics of the jury. Respondents' were asked for their personal opinions on the guilt or innocence of Simpson, whether they believed in the presence of a police conspiracy, and whether Simpson received a fair trial. Demographic variables include education, age, race, and sex.
Curated
ABC News O.J. Simpson Verdict Poll, October 1995 (ICPSR 6678)
Released/updated on: 1998-05-20
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll sought respondents' views on the O.J. Simpson murder trial verdict and on the treatment of minorities in the criminal justice system. Those queried were asked for their opinions on the verdict in the Simpson case and whether they believed Simpson was guilty or innocent. Additional topics covered a possible police conspiracy to frame Simpson and whether the outcome of the trial would have been different if Simpson were white. Demographic variables include sex and race.
Curated
ABC News O.J. Simpson Viewpoint Poll, October 1995 (ICPSR 6680)
Released/updated on: 2012-10-24
Geographic coverage: United States
This special topic poll sought respondents' views on the O.J. Simpson murder trial verdict and its effect on the country. Those queried were asked for their opinions on media coverage of the case, motivations for that coverage, and whether other news stories were abandoned to cover the Simpson case in depth. Respondents were asked to comment on television cameras in courtrooms and the effect the Simpson trial had on race relations in the United States. Demographic variables include sex and race.
Curated
American Bar Foundation: State Criminal Court Cases, 1962 (ICPSR 7272)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
This study presents data about criminal court cases in the 50 states and District of Columbia in 1962. Variables include state and county of trial, case processing, offense charged, sentence, type of counsel, amount of bail, length of time in jail, and other aspects related to the disposition of the cases. Demographic information on the defendant is provided, such as age group, sex, race, and years of school completed.
Curated
Analyzing Trial Time in California, Colorado, and New Jersey, 1986 (ICPSR 9223)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States, Colorado, California, New Jersey
Time period: 1986-03-01--1987-01-01
This study of nine courts was undertaken to identify procedural factors that can be used to reduce the length of criminal and civil trials without impairing fairness. The data collection provides direct information on the actual amount of time consumed by various trial segments and the perceived length of trial segments as gauged by judges and attorneys. In addition, data are supplied on the legal community's attitudes toward existing trial length, reasons for it, and judicial control over it. The trial case file contains information on types of cases and trials, estimated trial length, type of disposition, type of defense attorney, number of claims, cross-claims, and counterclaims, number of exhibits introduced, number of expert and lay witnesses called by the defense, number of peremptory challenges, and day and time the trial ended. The questionnaire data contain information on professional experiences, number of cases tried per month, opinions about time consumed by each segment of the trial, estimated time used in each segment, and attitudes toward judicial control over the trial length.
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
Arrests Without Conviction, 1979-1980: Jacksonville and San Diego (ICPSR 8180)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California, Florida, Jacksonville
This data collection includes information on robberies and burglaries in two cities, Jacksonville, Florida, and San Diego, California. The unit of analysis is defendants in felony cases. Information on each defendant includes socioeconomic status, criminal history, weapon usage, relationship to victim, trial procedures, and disposition. Demographic information for each defendant includes sex, race, age, and employment status. There are five files in the dataset. Parts 4 and 5 must be merged to form the complete Jacksonville burglaries dataset.
Curated
Assessment of Defense and Prosecutorial Strategies in Terrorism Trials in the United States, 1980-2004 (ICPSR 26241)
Released/updated on: 2014-11-11
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1980-01-01--2004-01-01
This study created a flat-file database of information regarding defendants who were referred to United States Attorneys by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) following official terrorism investigations between 1980 and 2004. Its ultimate goal was to provide state and federal prosecutors with empirical information that could assist federal and state prosecutors with more effective strategies for prosecution of terrorism cases. The results of this study enhanced the existing 78 variables in the AMERICAN TERRORISM STUDY, 1980-2002 (ICPSR 4639) database by adding the 162 variables from the Prosecution and Defense Strategies (PADS) database. The variables in the PADS database track information regarding important pleadings, motions, and other key events that occur in federal terrorism trials; the PADS variables measure the strategies used by legal counsel as well as other legal nuances.
Curated
Restricted
Blind Collaborative Justice Survey, 2014 [UNITED STATES] (ICPSR 35258)
Released/updated on: 2017-06-29
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2014-04-11--2014-04-30
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.
This study conducted an experimental investigation of two potential contributors to invalid testimony within adversarial litigation involving forensic evidence. First, the experts' knowledge of their party representation (i.e., prosecution vs. defense counsel), and secondly the lack of input from the relevant scientific community. The study used an experimental survey design with a realistic criminal case to examine the effects of blinding experts to their party representation and consensus feedback from a panel of experts to quantify and reduce testimonial bias.
Curated
Can Jury Instructions Have an Impact on Trial Outcomes, California, 2018 (ICPSR 37956)
Released/updated on: 2023-04-13
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 2018-01-01--2018-12-31
This funded project tested whether "implicit bias" jury instructions can mitigate discrimination by juries. Implicit bias instructions are being used in a small but growing number of jurisdictions, but have not yet been adequately tested for efficacy. The study employed a 2 x 2 x 2 factorial design, in which the race of defendant (Black or White), race of informant witness (Black or White), and jury instructions (implicit bias or standard bias instruction) was varied, creating eight experimental conditions. The data in this archive represent 623 participants who were assigned to one of 120 jury groups who viewed a federal drug conspiracy trial, deliberated to a verdict, then completed a series of individual measures.
Curated
CBS News/New York Times Monthly Poll #3 and Call-Back, September 1995 (ICPSR 2150)
Released/updated on: 2010-05-07
Geographic coverage: United States
This poll is part of a continuing series of monthly surveys that solicit public opinion on a range of political and social issues. This survey focused on the O.J. Simpson murder trial, with an initial survey after the closing arguments were concluded and a call-back of some of the respondents after the verdict was announced. Initial questions examined respondents' confidence in the American justice system, their opinions on what they believed were the prosecution's and defense's strongest pieces of evidence, and whether they believed O.J. Simpson to be guilty or not guilty. Respondents were also asked in the initial survey how closely they followed the trial and whether the lawyers and Judge Lance Ito behaved properly during the trial. In the call-back portion of this survey, respondents were queried as to whether they agreed with the not-guilty verdict and whether they believed the jury spent enough time in deliberations. They were also queried as to whether the Simpson trial would make them less or more likely to serve on a jury and whether television had made a difference in the outcome. Respondents were asked for their opinions on the criminal justice system in general and whether it was biased for or against Blacks. Background information on respondents in the initial survey includes voter registration status, political party, political orientation, education, age, sex, race, and family income. Age is the only demographic information provided in the call-back.
Curated
Children's Allegations of Sexual Abuse in Criminal Trials: Assessing Defense Attacks on Credibility and Identifying Effective Prosecution Methods, Maricopa County, Arizona, 2005-2015 (ICPSR 37465)
Released/updated on: 2020-11-30
Geographic coverage: Arizona
Time period: 2005-01-01--2015-12-31
Child maltreatment is widely recognized as a severe crisis in the United States (Norman, Byambaa, Butchart, Scott, & Vos, 2012), incurring costs of $124 billion annually (Fang, Brown, Florence, & Mercy, 2012). Accordingly, children in the United States are frequently called to testify in criminal proceedings about their allegations (Hamblen & Levine, 1997). To effectively develop procedures that better distinguish true from false allegations, one must be equally concerned about false convictions and false acquittals; assessing best practices that minimize children's vulnerabilities and maximize competencies. To do so, the justice system must assess whether children are credible. As such, is necessary for the prosecutor to establish children's credibility, particularly by preempting or rebuffing concerns from the defense. Further, it is necessary for the defense to evaluate whether children's allegations are honest or suggestively influenced, productive, consistent and plausible. However, it is undetermined how to do this effectively. The purpose of the present investigation is to assess how children's credibility is established and questioned in courtroom investigations of sexual abuse allegations, with a particular focus on how children respond. It is expected that: 1) defense attorneys will use likely use subtle means to attack children's honesty and suggestibility, whereas prosecutors will ask overtly about such topics, 2) children will exhibit productivity differences depending on the questioner, 3) defense attorneys will frequently ask children specific questions about prior inconsistencies, 4) prosecutors will infrequently establish the plausibility of abuse, 5) prosecutors will infrequently preempt defense attorneys' concerns of credibility, and will only sometimes rebuff their attacks during re-direct examination, 6) both prosecutors and defense attorneys may ask developmentally inappropriate questions, and that 7) case characteristics will be related to questioning patterns. The proposed investigation will: develop an understanding of current prosecution and defense methods in cases involving allegations of child sexual abuse, contribute to prosecutors' abilities to effectively try such cases, providing concrete recommendations for defense attorneys when assessing children's credibility, and facilitate better decision making in cases of alleged child sexual abuse.
Curated
Children's Out-of-Court Statements: Effects of Hearsay on Jurors' Decisions in Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, 1994-1997 (ICPSR 2791)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California, Arizona
Time period: 1994-01-01--1997-01-01
The goal of this project was to investigate the effects of children's out-of-court hearsay statements on jurors' perceptions of witness credibility and defendant guilt. To accomplish this goal, three studies were conducted. The studies represented a series of increasingly ecologically valid investigations: mock jurors' perceptions of children's live and hearsay statements about a mock crime (Study 1), mock jurors' perceptions of real child sexual abuse victims' hearsay statements (Study 2), and actual jurors' perceptions of real child sexual abuse victims' hearsay statements (Study 3). In these contexts, "hearsay statements" are the repetition of a child's out-of-court statements in a court trial, either via a videotaped recording of the child's testimony in a forensic interview with a social worker or as described by an adult (the social worker or a police officer) who interviewed the child. The three studies permitted researchers to examine factors that jurors use to evaluate the reliability of children's hearsay evidence. The mock crime in Study 1 was touching the child on the stomach, nose, or neck. Jurors were instructed to consider those acts as if they were battery against a child. In Study 1, elaborate mock trials concerning the above mock crime were conducted under three trial conditions: (1) the child testified live in court, (2) a videotape of a simulated forensic interview with the child was presented, or (3) adult hearsay was presented (i.e., a social worker testified about what the child had said in the simulated forensic interview). A total of 370 mock jurors participated in Study 1, which was conducted in Sacramento County, California. In Study 2, videotapes of actual forensic interviews from real child sexual abuse cases were incorporated into mock trials instead of having live child testimony. The last two trial conditions in Study 2 were the same as those for Study 1, except that a police officer provided the adult hearsay testimony instead of a social worker. For Study 2, 170 mock jurors served on 15 main juries, which were held in Sacramento County, California. For both Studies 1 and 2, pre- and post-deliberation questionnaires were completed by mock jurors to ascertain their views on the credibility of the child and adult testimonies, the importance of various pieces of evidence, and the guilt of the defendant. Demographic questionnaires were also filled out before the mock trials. In Study 3, real jurors from actual child sexual abuse trials were surveyed regarding their judgments of child and adult testimonies. The three trial conditions that were present in Studies 1 and 2 (live child testimony, videotaped testimony, and adult hearsay testimony) were also experienced by the Study 3 participants. These jurors also indicated the importance of various types of evidence and provided demographic data. A total of 248 jurors representing 43 juries from Sacramento County, California, and Maricopa County, Arizona, participated in Study 3. This collection includes aggregated data prepared from the Study 3 data to provide mean values for each of the 42 juries, as calculated from the individual juror responses. Data for one jury were eliminated from the aggregated data by the principal investigators. Variables from the demographic questionnaire for Studies 1 and 2 include trial condition, respondent's age, gender, marital status, occupation, ethnic background, religious orientation, and highest grade attained in school, if the respondent supported the death penalty, if the respondent was ever a victim of crime, number of children the respondent had, if the respondent was a United States citizen, if the respondent's native language was English, and if he or she had ever been a police officer, a convicted felon, a lawyer, or a judge. The pre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 1 asked jurors if they felt that the defendant was guilty, and how confident they were of the defendant's guilt or innocence. Jurors were also asked to assess the accuracy of various facts as given in the social worker's interview of the child and the child's statements in the taped interview, and what the likelihood was of the child's being influenced by the social worker, prosecutor, and/or defense attorney. Questions about the trial included the juror's assessment of the defendant, the social worker, and the research assistant. Jurors were also asked about the influence of various factors on their decisions regarding whether to believe the individuals in the case. Jurors' open-ended comments were coded on the most important factors in believing or doubting the child or the social worker, the most important evidence in the case, and whether anything could have been done to make the trial more fair. Post-deliberation questions in Study 1 included whether the defendant was guilty, how confident the juror was of the defendant's guilt or innocence regarding various charges in the case, and the final verdict of the jury. Questions similar to those in Study 1 were asked in the pre-deliberation questionnaire for Study 2, which also included respondents' opinions of the police officer, the mother, the doctor, and the use of anatomical dolls. The Study 2 post-deliberation questionnaire included questions on whether the defendant was guilty, how confident the juror was of the defendant's guilt or innocence, and the juror's assessment of the social worker's videotaped interview and the police officer's testimony. Variables from the Study 3 juror survey include the county/state where the trial was held, the juror's age, gender, ethnic background, and highest grade attained in school, if the juror supported the death penalty, if he or she was ever a victim of crime, and the amount of contact he or she had with children. Questions about the trial include the number of children the defendant was charged with abusing, the main child's age and gender, if a videotape was shown at trial, who interviewed the child on the videotape, the impact of seeing the videotape on the juror's decision to believe the child, the number of children who testified at the trial, and if the child was involved in a custody dispute. Additional questions focused on the defendant's relationship to the main child, who the first person was that the child told about the abuse, if the main child testified in court, the most important evidence in the case in the opinion of the juror, the jury's verdict, and how fair the juror considered the trial. Finally, jurors were asked about the influence of various factors on their decision to believe or doubt the individuals in the case. Data in Study 3 also include coded open-ended responses to several questions. Variables provided for the Study 3 aggregated data consist of the calculated mean values for each of the 42 juries for most of the variables in the Study 3 juror survey data.
Curated
Comparative Effectiveness PTSD Trial of Sequenced Pharmacotherapy and Psychotherapy in Primary Care, 11 U.S. States, 2021-2024 (ICPSR 39425)
Released/updated on: 2025-12-15
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Montana, United States, Texas, Massachusetts, Colorado, Ohio, California, Arkansas, Washington, South Carolina, Michigan
Time period: 2021-04-01--2024-06-30
Based on the state of the scientific evidence, the Sequenced Treatment Effectiveness for Posttraumatic Stress (STEPS) Trial was designed to address three specific aims. The first aim was to quantitatively compare engagement, self-reported PTSD symptom severity (primary outcome), quality of life, and recovery outcomes of primary care patients randomized to initially receive brief psychotherapy (Written Exposure Therapy - WET) or their choice of the three selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). The second aim was, among patients not responding to initial treatment, to quantitatively compare outcomes of primary care patients randomized to: 1) augment the SSRI with WET, 2) switch from the SSRI to another class of antidepressants (serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors - SNRI), or 3) switch from WET to the choice of the three SSRIs. The third specific aim was to quantitatively examine treatment heterogeneity among subgroups of primary care patients receiving pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy, including veterans, women, and those using cannabis.
Curated
Design and Methodological Improvements for Patient-Centered Small n Sequential Multiple Assignment Randomized Trials (snSMARTs) in the Setting of Rare Diseases [Methods Study], 2016-2020 (ICPSR 39636)
Released/updated on: 2025-12-16
Time period: 2016-01-01--2020-01-01
A rare disease is one that affects fewer than 200,000 people in the United States. Because few people have these diseases, clinical studies on treatments can be hard to conduct. One way to study rare disease treatments is with an snSMART study.
snSMART studies have two stages. In the first stage, researchers assign patients to a treatment by chance. In the second stage, patients may stay with the same treatment or switch treatments. Patients stay on the same treatment if it's working well. If the treatment isn't working, researchers assign patients by chance to a new treatment.
snSMARTs can help researchers learn more from a smaller number of patients than a standard clinical study. But most current methods for analyzing snSMARTs use data only from the first stage, which can lead to inefficient results.
In this project, the research team developed and tested new methods that use data from both stages to analyze snSMARTs. The team compared results from the new methods to actual treatment effectiveness to see Bias, or whether results are too high or too low effficiency, or how big the difference is between the results and actual treatment effectiveness
To access the software, please visit the snSMART Sample Size App.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
Educator Sexual Misconduct Database, 2008 - 2010 (ICPSR 36137)
Released/updated on: 2015-08-03
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2008-01-01--2010-01-01
The Educator Sexual Misconduct Database identifies a sample of criminal cases related to educator sexual misconduct (regardless of the specific criminal statute the defendant was ultimately charged under). The sample of cases all involve a defendant who was connected to the victim through their roles as an educator or school staff member, and who are alleged to have had physical sexual contact with a minor. This database provides a sample of criminal cases specific to educator sexual misconduct even if the defendant's custodial relationship to the minor is not specifically referenced in any of the criminal charges. The sample was identified through news media coverage of criminal proceedings based on a content analysis of newspaper archives and court records available in the LexisNexis news. Cases include convictions ranging from improper relationship between educator and student, to contributing to the delinquency of a minor.
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
Evaluation of No-Drop Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in San Diego, California, Omaha, Nebraska, Klamath Falls, Oregon, and Everett, Washington, 1996-2000 (ICPSR 3319)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Omaha, Klameth Falls, San Diego, United States, Everett, California, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1996-01-01--2000-01-01
This study sought to examine the effects of no-drop policies on court outcomes, victim satisfaction with the justice system, and feelings of safety. Moreover, researchers wanted to determine whether (1) prosecution without the victim's cooperation was feasible with appropriate increases in resources, (2) implementing a no-drop policy resulted in increased convictions and fewer dismissals, (3) the number of trials would increase in jurisdictions where no-drop was adopted as a result of the prosecutor's demand for a plea in cases in which victims were uncooperative or unavailable, and (4) prosecutors would have to downgrade sentence demands to persuade defense attorneys to negotiate pleas in the new context of a no-drop policy. Statutes implemented in San Diego, California, were designed to make it easier to admit certain types of evidence and thereby to increase the prosecutor's chances of succeeding in trials without victim cooperation. To assess the impact of these statutes, researchers collected official records data on a sample of domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 2000 and resulted in no trial (Part 1), and cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999, and resulted in a trial (Part 2). In Everett, Washington (Part 3), Klamath Falls, Oregon (Part 4), and Omaha, Nebraska (Part 5), researchers collected data on all domestic violence cases in which disposition occurred between 1996 and 1999 and resulted in a trial. Researchers also conducted telephone interviews in the four sites with domestic violence victims whose cases resolved under the no-drop policy (Part 6) in the four sites. Variables for Part 1 include defendant's gender, court outcome, whether the defendant was sentenced to probation, jail, or counseling, and whether the counseling was for batterer, drug, or anger management. Criminal history, other domestic violence charges, and the relationship between the victim and defendant are also included. Variables for Part 2 include length of trial and outcome, witnesses for the prosecution, defendant's statements to the police, whether there were photos of the victim's injury, the scene, or the weapon, and whether medical experts testified. Criminal history and whether the defendant underwent psychological evaluation or counseling are also included. Variables for Parts 3-5 include the gender of the victim and defendant, relationship between victim and defendant, top charges and outcomes, whether the victim had to be subpoenaed, types of witnesses, if there was medical evidence, type of weapon used, if any, whether the defendant confessed, any indications that the prosecutor talked to the victim, if the victim was in court on the disposition date, the defendant's sentence, and whether the sentence included electronic surveillance, public service, substance abuse counseling, or other general counseling. Variables for Part 6 include relationship between victim and defendant, whether the victim wanted the defendant to be arrested, whether the defendant received treatment for alcohol, drugs, or domestic violence, if the court ordered the defendant to stay away from the victim, and if the victim spoke to anyone in the court system, such as the prosecutor, detective, victim advocate, defense attorney, judge, or a probation officer. The victim's satisfaction with the police, judge, prosecutor, and the justice system, and whether the defendant had continued to threaten, damage property, or abuse the victim verbally or physically are also included. Demographic variables on the victim include race, income, and level of education.
Curated
Firearms Violence and the Michigan Felony Firearm Law: Detroit, 1976-1978 (ICPSR 8509)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: Detroit, United States, Michigan
Time period: 1976-01-01--1978-01-01
The purpose of this study was to estimate the impact of the Michigan Firearm Law on the processing of defendants in Detroit's Recorder's Court. Most variables in the study focus on the defendant and on court processing decisions made at different stages. Special attention was given to determining the presence and use of firearms and other weapons in each offense. Variables included are gender and race of the defendant, original charges, type of counsel, amount of bail, felony firearm charged, number of convictions, race of the victim, firearm used, judge, and sentence.
Curated
Free Press, Fair Trial Data, 1970 (ICPSR 7541)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
This data collection contains information gathered in a 1970 survey of 623 newspaper editors, police chiefs, bar associations, prosecuting attorneys, and defense attorneys from a sample of 166 cities across the country. The study's research objectives were to develop a model for determining the optimum mix of free press and fair trial in pending criminal cases, to compare alternative procedures for handling the free press/fair trial problem, and to compare the attitudes and procedures of the various decisionmakers involved. Information gathered in the survey includes: (1) the degree of pretrial press publicity allowed on pending criminal cases, (2) relevant attitudes and opinions, especially concerning ways of reducing the adverse effects of pretrial publicity while still having an informed public (e.g., the degree to which the public needs to know the details of criminal proceedings, whether the traditional legal remedies of change of venue, voir dire, sequestering, etc., are adequate to neutralize the effects of possibly prejudicial news coverage, and whether the American Bar Association's restrictions on the extent of information lawyers can release represents an infringement upon the people's right to know), (3) the benefits seen as derived from news coverage of criminal cases, and (4) prevailing pretrial procedures by editors, police, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. Demographic data (e.g., population, region, and whether an SMSA or not) about the 106 cities represented in the survey are also included in the file.
Curated
Impact of Sentencing Reforms and Speedy Trial Laws in the United States, 1969-1989 (ICPSR 9736)
Released/updated on: 1992-03-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1969-01-01--1989-01-01
The certainty and promptness of punishment have long been hypothesized to be important variables in deterring crime. This data collection evaluates whether sentencing reforms to enhance certainty of punishment and speedy trial laws to enhance promptness of punishment affected crime rates, prison admissions, and prison populations. Variables include state, year, crime reports, economic conditions, population (including age structure), prison population, prison releases, and prison admissions. The unit of observation is the state by the year.
Curated
Jury and Democracy Project (ICPSR 32801)
Released/updated on: 2016-05-11
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Seattle, United States, Texas, Colorado, Louisiana, Ohio, Washington, Nebraska
Time period: 1994-01-01--2004-01-01, 2004-01-01--2005-01-01
The Jury and Democracy Project aims to understand the impact that jury service has on citizens. Until recently, no direct empirical evidence regarding the link between jury service and public engagement existed. The Jury and Democracy Project has produced such data. This study consists of two datasets. Part 1, the National Jury Archival Data, consists of a merger of jury and voting records from 1994-2004 in Boulder County (Colorado), Cumberland and Swain Counties (North Carolina), Douglas County (Nebraska), El Paso County (Texas), Orleans Parish (Louisiana), Summit County (Ohio), and Thurston County (Washington). Part 1 includes information regarding seriousness and type of charges, duration of trial and trial information, county and juror information, juror role and voter information, and basic demographic information such as sex, age, political affiliation, and race. Part 2, the King County Survey Data, includes three waves of panel survey data collected from Washington state's King County Court and the Seattle Municipal Courthouse during 2004-2005. In Wave 1 all jurors in King County Court and Seattle Municipal Courthouse received the same survey which collected data on pre-service attitudes, demographics, and past jury duty service and behavior characteristics. Wave 2 consisted of two surveys: (1) King County Court jurors were surveyed on jury duty service experience and treatment, as well as jury selection, court and government efficacy, and citizen responsibility; (2) Seattle Municipal Courthouse jurors were surveyed on the same variables as the King County juror survey, as well as jury deliberation issues. Wave 3 also consisted of two surveys: (1) King County and Seattle Municipal Court jurors were surveyed on their involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, reflections on jury service, and political views; (2) an additional Wave 3 survey was given to a control replacement sample, which collected data on politics and public life, as well as involvement in politics and public affairs, participation in the local community, the political process, jury service, and demographic characteristics such as sex, race, age, and education level.
Curated
Mandatory Drug offender Processing Data, 1986: Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia (ICPSR 9420)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: North Carolina, Iowa, United States, Alaska, Minnesota, California, New York (state), Virginia, Nebraska
The National Consortium for Assessing Drug Control Initiatives, funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance and coordinated by the Criminal Justice Statistics Association, collected drug offender processing data from eight states: Alaska, California, Iowa, Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, North Carolina, and Virginia. The purpose of the project was to track adult drug offenders from the point of entry into the criminal justice system (typically by arrest) through final court disposition, regardless of whether the offender was released without trial, acquitted, or convicted. These data allow researchers to examine how the criminal justice system processes drug offenders, to measure the changing volume of drug offenders moving through the different segments of the criminal justice system, to calculate processing time intervals between major decision-making events, and to assess the changing structure of the drug offender population. For purposes of this project, a drug offender was defined as any person who had been charged with a felony drug offense. The data are structured into six segments pertaining to (1) record identification, (2) the offender (date of birth, sex, race, ethnic origin), (3) arrest information (date of arrest, age at arrest, arrest charge code), (4) prosecution information (filed offense code and level, prosecution disposition and date), (5) court disposition information (disposition offense and level, court disposition, final disposition date, final pleading, type of trial), and (6) sentencing information (sentence and sentence date, sentence minimum and maximum). Also included are elapsed time variables. The unit of analysis is the felony drug offender.
Curated
Massachusetts Superior Court Files, 1859-1959 (ICPSR 7776)
Released/updated on: 2010-05-14
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts
Time period: 1859-01-01--1959-01-01
This dataset contains data about case records created between 1859-1959 in the Massachusetts Superior Court (and its predecessors) for two Massachusetts counties. Part 1 contains data for 1,952 criminal cases with 52 descriptive variables, including: type of crime, year crime was committed, pleas, sentences, appeals, size of file, and demographic characteristics of victim and defendant (e.g., gender, status, residence, and occupation). Eighteen variables describe and rate each case's historical interest. Part 2 contains data on 1,968 civil (law, equity, and divorce) cases, with 82 descriptive variables, such as: relationship between parties, type of complaint, relief sought, disposition, relief granted, number of claims, damages awarded, size of file, and demographic characteristics of plaintiff and defendant (e.g., gender, status, residence, and occupation). Ten variables describe and rate each case's historical interest. In both data files, criteria for historical interest coding include: (1) inherent interest, such as offenses that are not routine (e.g., white-collar crimes, sexual crimes, and serious felonies), parties who are inherently interesting (e.g., famous persons, institutional defendants, and law enforcement personnel), and legal proceedings that are inherently interesting (e.g., alleged violations of prosecutorial or judicial discretion), (2) contexts that are inherently interesting, and (3) extraordinary documentation, such as those that shed light on the legal system (e.g., pardons or letters from citizens' committees), shed light on social history (e.g., the testimony of a woman who moved to the city and inadvertently ended up in a brothel), provide legal/procedural information (e.g., the details of search or a technical challenge to an indictment), and describe public or political history (e.g., milk inspection or zoning laws).
Curated
Slave Trials in Anderson and Spartanburg Counties, South Carolina, 1818-1861 (ICPSR 8674)
Released/updated on: 2007-09-18
Geographic coverage: United States, South Carolina
Time period: 1818-01-01--1861-01-01
This dataset is part of a larger data collection effort conducted by the principal investigator to study crime, justice, and penal reform in Massachusetts and South Carolina from 1760 to 1880. Data are presented in this file on over 600 slave trials in two counties of ante-bellum South Carolina from 1818 to 1861. Included are variables documenting the accused crime, verdict, punishment, and item stolen (if applicable), as well as the defendant's name, sex, status, owner, and date of the trial.
Curated
Supervised Pretrial Release Programs, 1979-1982: Miami, Milwaukee, and Portland (ICPSR 8919)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: Oregon, Milwaukee, United States, Portland (Oregon), Florida, Wisconsin, Miami
Time period: 1979-01-01--1982-01-01
This data collection effort was designed to assess the effects of different types of supervised pretrial release (SPR). Four major types of effects were examined: (1) defendants' behaviors while awaiting trial (failure to appear and arrests for new offenses), (2) the costs of SPR to victims and the criminal justice system, (3) pretrial release practices, and (4) jail populations. This study provides detailed information for a selected group of defendants awaiting trial on criminal histories and arrests while awaiting trial. Data are also available on services provided between arrest and disposition. The study produced four different data sets. The first, Supervised Release Information System (SRIS), contains intake information on current arrest, criminal record, socio-economic status, ties with the community, contact with mental health and substance abuse facilities, and pretrial release decisions. The release section of this data base contains information on services provided, intensity of supervision, termination from program, personal characteristics at termination, criminal charges at disposition, and new charges resulting from arrests while under pretrial status. The Arrest Data Set includes variables on type and number of crimes committed by SPR defendants, property costs to victims, personal injury costs, and court disposition for each offense. The Retrospective Data Set supplies variables on charges filed and method of release, personal characteristics, length of pretrial incarceration, bail, whether the defendant was rebooked during the pretrial period, charge at disposition, sentence, total court appearances, and total failures to appear in court (FTAs). The Jail Population Data Set contains monthly counts of jail population and average daily population.
Curated
Testing the Efficacy of the SANE-SART Programs in Kansas, Massachusetts, and New Jersey, 1997-2001 (ICPSR 20341)
Released/updated on: 2008-10-01
Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Kansas, New Jersey
Time period: 1997-01-01--2001-01-01
The purpose of the study was to explore the impact of interventions by Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners/Sexual Assault Response Teams (SANE/SART) on the judicial process. The goal was to test the efficacy of SANE/SART programs as a tool in the criminal justice system. The American Prosecutors Research Institute and Boston College tested the hypotheses that SANE/SART exams increase arrest and prosecution rates. The researchers collected case information from SANE/SART, police, and prosecution files in three jurisdictions: Monmouth County (Freehold), New Jersey, Sedgwick County (Wichita), Kansas, and Suffolk County (Boston), Massachusetts. At each study site, the project team randomly selected up to 125 sexual assault cases in which there was a SANE or SART intervention and 125 cases in which there was no SANE/SART intervention from cases that were opened and closed between 1997 and 2001. Comparisons were sought between SANE/SART cases (both SANE only and SANE/SART combined) and non-SANE/SART cases to determine if the intervention predicted the likelihood of certain criminal justice system outcomes. These outcomes included identification/arrest of a suspect, the filing of charges, case disposition, type of penalty, and length of sentence. In addition, researchers collected information on a number of other variables that could impact or mitigate the effect of SANE/SART interventions and case outcomes. The researchers abstracted information from case files maintained by SANE programs, police incident/arrest reports, and prosecution files during intensive five-day site visits. Three standardized records abstraction forms were developed to collect data: (1) the incident form was designed to collect data from police reports and the prosecution files about the actual sexual assault, (2) the case abstraction form was designed to collect prosecution data and case outcome data from the prosecutors' case files, and (3) the SANE/SART data collection form collected information from the SANE/SART files about the SANE/SART intervention. Specific information regarding the evidence collected during the victim's exam, nature of the assault, evidence/forensic kits collected, victim's demeanor, weapon(s) used, number of assailants, and the victim/offender relationship were collected.
Curated
Victim Impact Statements: Their Effect on Court Outcomes and Victim Satisfaction in New York, 1988-1990 (ICPSR 9588)
Released/updated on: 1999-12-14
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1988-07-01--1989-04-01
The purpose of this data collection was to assess the effects of victim impact statements on sentencing decisions and on victim satisfaction with the criminal justice system. Victims were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions: (1) Victims were interviewed, with an impact statement written and immediately distributed to the prosecutor, defense attorney, and judge on the case, (2) Victims were interviewed to assess impact but no statement was written, and (3) Victims were assigned to a control condition in which there was no interview or statement. Subsequent interviews evaluated victims' perceptions of their role in the proceedings and their satisfaction with the outcome. Data were also recorded on charges filed against the defendants (both the arraignment and final charges), sentences, and special conditions of sentences. Standard demographic information was gathered as well. The remaining variables fall into two categories. The first category includes questions about the defendant(s) in the case. For all defendants in each case (up to six per victim) the researchers recorded information on the nature and severity of the arraignment charges and final charges, and on the sentence received. Additional information was recorded for the first and second defendants in a case. This included information on special conditions of the sentence such as a drug treatment program or restraining order. Orders to pay restitution were noted. Also recorded was information on the defendant's status with the criminal justice system, including number of prior convictions and number of open cases against the defendant. Finally, whether the Victim Impact Statement appeared in the assistant district attorney's file on the case and whether the statement had been opened were noted. The second category of variables includes information about the victim's reactions to the crime and the criminal justice system. Victims were asked to assess the impact the crime had on them in terms of physical injury, financial losses, psychological effect, and behavioral effect (i.e., changes in behavior resulting from the experience). They were also questioned about their experiences with the criminal justice system. The researchers inquired about their participation in the sentencing decision, their satisfaction with the outcome, and how they felt they had been treated by various court officials. Victims were asked whether they felt that court officials were aware of and were concerned about the effect the crime had on them. They were also asked whether victims should have a greater role in the court proceedings and whether court officials should be aware of victim impact as part of the sentencing procedure. Finally, the researchers investigated whether the victims believed that going to court was a waste of time.
Curated
Victims and Witnesses in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin: Impact of Crime and Experience with the Criminal Justice System, 1974-1975 (ICPSR 6369)
Released/updated on: 1996-10-08
Geographic coverage: United States, Wisconsin
Time period: 1974-01-01--1975-01-01
This study was designed to examine victim and witness attitudes, beliefs, problems, and needs as a result of the criminal act and as a consequence of interactions with the criminal justice system. The study dealt with three samples. Two of the samples included victims and witnesses currently involved in the criminal justice system in Milwaukee County, Wisconsin ("in-system" samples). The third sample included was of victims originally located by the National Crime Survey conducted in Milwaukee in early 1974, who were reinterviewed on behalf of this project by the United States Bureau of the Census ("community" sample). Members of the "in-system" samples were contacted as their cases were considered at one of four stages in the criminal justice process: (1) the screening conference in the district attorney's office, (2) the preliminary hearing, (3) the misdemeanor trial, or (4) the felony trial. Both the in-system and community respondents were asked about their attitudes toward security and safety, criminals, and restitution, what problems crime victims may have as a result of experiencing the crime and going to court, and their satisfaction with the handling of their case by the police, the district attorney, and the judge. Incident data cover the respondent's relationship to the offender, injuries sustained, type of crime and what happened, reason for calling/not calling police, and losses resulting from the crime. Follow-up data supply information on resulting emotional problems and other problems resulting from the crime, how people close to the respondent were affected, financial, interpersonal, and physical-emotional crime-related problems, and court system-related problems. Additional questions were asked about the types of services provided by social agencies to the crime victims and witnesses, the respondent's opinion of the behavior of the police, and, for victims, perceptions of the importance of providing help for crime victims. Demographic variables include age, education, race, sex, income, occupational prestige status, and employment history of respondents.