Search results

Showing 1 – 5 of 5 results.

Curated

Restricted

Assessing Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing in Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia, 2001-2002, 2004 (ICPSR 22642)

Released/updated on: 2009-11-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota, Virginia, Michigan

Time period: 2001-07-01--2002-06-30, 2001-07-01--2002-06-30

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the integrity of sentencing outcomes under alternative state guideline systems and to investigate how this variation in structure impacted actual sentencing practice. The research team sought to address the question, to what extent do sentencing guidelines contribute to the goals of consistency, proportionality, and a lack of discrimination. The National Center for State Courts conducted an examination of sentencing patterns in three states with substantially different guidelines systems: Minnesota, Michigan, and Virginia. The three states vary along critical dimensions of the presumptive versus voluntary nature of guidelines as well as basic mechanics. There are differences in the formal design, administration, and statutory framework of the Michigan, Minnesota, and Virginia sentencing systems. For the 2004 Michigan Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 1), the Michigan Department of Corrections Offender Management Network Information System (OMNI) provided sentencing guideline data for 32,754 individual offenders sentenced during calendar year 2004. For the 2002 Minnesota Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 2), the Minnesota Sentencing Commission provided data for 12,978 individual offenders sentenced in calendar year 2002. The Virginia Sentencing Commission provided the Fiscal Year 2002 Virginia Assault Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 3) and the Fiscal Year 2002 Virginia Burglary Sentencing Outcomes Data (Part 4). The Assault and Burglary/Dwelling crime groups have 1,614 and 1,743 observations, respectively. Variables in the four datasets are classified into the broad categories of conviction offense severity, prior record, offense seriousness, grid cell type, habitual/modifiers, departure, and extra guideline variables.

Curated

Restricted

Examining the Effectiveness of Indigent Defense Team Services: A Multisite Evaluation of Holistic Defense in Practice, Kentucky, Minnesota, Rhode Island, 2015-2018 (ICPSR 37361)

Released/updated on: 2021-05-25

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, United States, Kentucky, Minnesota

Time period: 2016-06-01--2017-06-12

The goals of this project were to: describe the implementation of holistic defense principles in three indigent defense programs; measure each program's impact on pretrial court practices, manner of disposition, sentencing, and other case outcomes; and explore an appropriate methodology to assess the cost-efficiency of these programs in comparison with traditional criminal defense practice. Researchers collected data on both holistic and traditional defense delivery via interviews, surveys, focus groups, observation during site visits, and administrative data from public defender and court information systems. This evaluation was conducted in three research sites: Rhode Island Public Defender (Providence office); Minnesota Public Defender (Minneapolis office); and the Kentucky Department of Public Advocacy (Bowling Green office). The evaluation focused on adult criminal cases. A process evaluation examined how holistic defense has been implemented in each site. The impact evaluation used a quasi-experimental design that includes matched comparison groups and alternative statistical models to examine the relative impact of holistic defense on a range of outcomes, controlling for defendant characteristics. The project investigated the parameters necessary to conduct a cost-efficiency analysis within the context of holistic defense and, to the extent possible, began to estimate the costs/benefits of holistic defense services. In addition to data sets for archiving and a summary report to NIJ, anticipated work products include professional conference presentations, manuscripts for submission to professional journals, and research briefs.

Curated

Restricted

Habeas Corpus Litigation in United States District Courts: An Empirical Study, 2000-2006 (ICPSR 21200)

Released/updated on: 2013-12-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2006-01-01

The purpose of the Habeas Corpus Litigation in United States District Courts: An Empirical Study, 2007 is to provide empirical information about habeas corpus cases filed by state prisoners in United States District Courts under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). The writ of habeas corpus is a remedy regulated by statute and available in federal court to persons "in custody in violation of the Constitution..." When a federal court grants a writ of habeas corpus, it orders the state court to release the prisoner, or to repeat the trial, sentencing, or other proceeding that led to the prisoner's custody. Each year, state prisoners file between 16,000 and 18,000 cases seeking habeas corpus relief. The study was the first to collect empirical information about this litigation, a decade after AEDPA was passed. It sought to shed light upon an otherwise unexplored area of habeas corpus law by looking at samples of capital and non-capital cases and describing the court processing and general demographic information of these cases in detail.

AEDPA changed habeas law by:

Establishing a 1-year statute of limitation for filing a federal habeas petition, which begins when appeal of the state judgment is complete, and is tolled during "properly filed" state post-conviction proceedings;
Authorizing federal judges to deny on the merits any claim that a petitioner failed to exhaust in state court;
Prohibiting a federal court from holding an evidentiary hearing when the petitioner failed to develop the facts in state court, except in limited circumstances;
Barring successive petitions, except in limited circumstances; and
Mandating a new standard of review for evaluating state court determinations of fact and applications of constitutional law.

The information found within this study is for policymakers who design or assess changes in habeas law, for litigants and courts who address the scope and meaning of the habeas statutes, and for researchers who seek information concerning the processing of habeas petitions in federal courts. Descriptive findings are provided detailing petitioner demographics, state proceedings, representation of petitioner in federal court, petitions, type of proceeding challenged, claims raised, intermediate orders, litigation steps, processing time, non-merits dispositions and merits disposition for both capital and non-capital cases which lead into the comparative and explanatory findings that provide information on current and past habeas litigation and how it has been effected by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.

Curated

Impact of Prisoner Litigation Reform, 1992-2000 [United States] (ICPSR 20354)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-10

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1992-04-01--2000-12-01

In 1996, the United States Congress enacted two policies to regulate the use of the legal system by state prisoners. They were the Prisoner Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA). The purpose of this research project was to examine whether the PLRA and the AEDPA had their intended effects of reducing the number of Section 1983 lawsuits and habeas corpus petitions, respectively, at both the national and circuit court levels. The researchers obtained data, from the Research and Statistics Division of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, on the number of civil rights suits and the number of habeas corpus petitions filed by state prisoners in district courts from April 1992 to December 2000. These data were organized into monthly increments. Dataset 1, Civil Rights Suits Filed, contains 105 cases, and Dataset 2, Habeas Corpus Petitions Filed, also contains 105 cases. The trends in civil rights suits filed (Dataset 1) and habeas corpus petitions filed (Dataset 2) were measured by the number of petitions filed per 10,000 state prisoners. Filing rates were measured at the level of district courts, grouped together by the circuit court that has jurisdiction over them.

Variables in Dataset 1, Civil Rights Suits Filed, include filing date and the number of civil rights suits filed per 10,000 state prisoners at the national level as well as for district courts within each of the 11 circuits and the District of Columbia. An intervention flag variable is also included. Variables in Dataset 2, Habeas Corpus Petitions Filed, include filing date and the number of habeas corpus petitions filed per 10,000 state prisoners at the national level, as well as for district courts within each of the 11 circuits and the District of Columbia. A pulse flag variable and two intervention flag variables are also included.

Curated

Restricted

Understanding Court Culture and Improving Court Performance in 12 Courts in California, Florida, and Minnesota, 2002 (ICPSR 20366)

Released/updated on: 2008-08-25

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota, California, Florida

Time period: 2002-04-01--2002-08-01

The purpose of this study was to examine the organizational culture in 12 felony criminal trial courts selected in 3 states and to gauge prosecuting and public defender attorneys' views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. Data on organizational culture in each of the 12 courts (Part 1) were obtained by administering the Court Culture Assessment Instrument (CCAI) to all judges with a felony criminal court docket and to all senior court administrators. A total of 224 respondents completed the questionnaire. Additionally, surveys were conducted of prosecuting attorneys (Part 2) and public defender attorneys (Part 3) to gauge their views on how well the courts in which they practice achieve the goals of access, fairness, and managerial effectiveness. A total of 334 prosecuting attorneys and 260 public defense attorneys completed the 46-item trial court process survey. Part 1 contains 40 variables pertaining to 5 dimensions of current and preferred court culture. Variables in Part 2 and Part 3 each include seven items from a jurisdictional practice scale, eight items from a procedural fairness scale, seven items from a resource scale, nine items from a management scale, nine items from a practitioner competence scale, and six items from a court access scale.