Search results

Showing 1 – 33 of 33 results.

Curated

Access to Justice in Ontario, 1985-1988 (ICPSR 9729)

Released/updated on: 1999-11-19

Geographic coverage: Canada, Ontario, Global

Time period: 1985-01-01--1988-01-01

This data collection, which was designed to assess experiences with the Ontario, Canada, civil justice system, is a replication and extension of a survey conducted by the Civil Litigation Research Project at the University of Wisconsin. Interviews were conducted with the heads of households. Questions were asked about the nature of the problem, e.g., auto accident, work injury, discrimination, problems with landlord, violations of privacy, or victimization. Questions were also asked about actions taken in response to the problem, such as whether a lawyer was contacted, reasons for not contacting a lawyer, whether non-lawyer assistance was sought, whether a claim was made, and reasons for not making a claim. Finally, questions were asked about the household's experience with the Ontario justice system if a claim was made, including whether there was a trial or a hearing, how much the lawyer charged, evaluation of the result, satisfaction with the result, evaluation of the cost, perceived delay, agreement reached, and compensation awarded. Major demographic variables include age, occupation, number of persons in household, language, ethnic background, religion, education, and family income.

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

Assessing Local Legal Culture: Practitioner Norms in Four Criminal Courts, 1979 (ICPSR 7808)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

This study attempts to operationalize the concept of local legal culture by examining differences in the processing of twelve hypothetical criminal cases in four criminal courts. Questionnaires asking how these hypothetical cases should best be handled were administered to judges, district attorneys, and defense attorneys in four cities: Bronx County (New York City), New York, Detroit, Michigan, Miami, Florida, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. In each city, the presiding judge, prosecutor, and head of the public defender's office were informed of the project. Questionnaires were distributed to prosecuting attorneys and public defenders by their supervisors. Judges were contacted in person or given questionnaires with a cover letter from the presiding judge. All questionnaires were completed anonymously and returned separately by respondents. The variables include number of years the respondent had been in the criminal justice system, preferred mode of disposition and of sentencing for each of the twelve cases, and the respondents' predictions of the probability of conviction in each case.

Curated

Chicago Lawyers Survey, 1975 (ICPSR 8218)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-06

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois

This data collection contains information gathered in 1975 on attorneys in Chicago, Illinois. The purpose of this data collection was to describe and analyze the social organization of the legal profession in Chicago. Several major aspects of the legal profession were investigated: the organization of lawyers' work, the social stratification within the Chicago Bar Association, prestige within the profession, lawyers' personal values, career patterns and mobility, networks of association, and the "elites" within the profession. Specific questions elicited information on areas of law in which the respondents spent most of their time practicing, and the ethnicities, educational background, religion, political affiliation, bar association memberships, and sex of respondents' friends and colleagues. Other variables probe respondents' backgrounds, such as father's occupation, home town, law school from which the respondent graduated, religious and political affiliations, ethnicity, sex, and income.

Curated

Restricted

Chicago Lawyers Survey, 1994-1995 (ICPSR 4100)

Released/updated on: 2012-08-22

Geographic coverage: United States, Chicago, Illinois

Time period: 1994-01-01--1995-01-01

Conducted as a partial replication of the CHICAGO LAWYERS SURVEY, 1975 (ICPSR 8218), this 1994-1995 survey sought to analyze the processes of change that transformed the practice of law and the market for legal services over the two decades between 1975 and 1995. Randomly selected Chicago, Illinois, lawyers were asked about, for example, the nature of their work, work settings, fields of practice, job satisfaction, career histories, professional commitment, client characteristics, and social and political values. Results revealed important changes in the legal profession between 1975 and 1995: women entered the profession in substantial numbers, new specialties were created, law firms and corporate legal departments grew dramatically, and in many organizations the practice of law became constrained by bureaucratic rules and procedures. Background information includes state of residence during high school, college or university attended, law school attended, law school class rank, political preference, degree of political party affiliation, religious preference, marital status, nationality, year of birth, income, race, zip code, number of children, work status of spouse, spouse's nationality, respondents' mother's occupation, respondents' mother's law school, respondents' father's occupation, and respondents' father's law school.

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

Restricted

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

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

Restricted

Impact of Legal Representation on Child Custody Decisions among Families with a History of Intimate Partner Violence in King County, Washington, 2000-2010 (ICPSR 35356)

Released/updated on: 2017-06-13

Geographic coverage: United States, King County, Washington

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 major aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that legal representation of the Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) victim in child custody decisions leads to greater legal protections being awarded in these decisions compared to similar cases of unrepresented IPV victims. A retrospective cohort study was conducted among King County couples with minor children filing for marriage dissolution in King County, Washington between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2010 who had a history of police or court documented intimate partner violence (IPV). The study examined the separate effects of private legal representation and legal aid representation relative to propensity score-matched, unrepresented comparison subjects. Primary study outcomes were measured at the time the first "Final Parenting Plan" was awarded. Researchers also examined the two-year period post-decree among the subset of cases with filing between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2009 for post-decree court proceedings indicative of continued child custody or visitation disputes.

Curated

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

Juror Discussions About Evidence, 1997-1998: [Arizona] (ICPSR 2687)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Arizona

Time period: 1997-06-15--1998-01-31

These data were collected in conjunction with an evaluation of the Arizona court reform effective December 1, 1995, to permit jurors in civil cases to discuss the evidence prior to deliberations. The datasets consist of survey responses by judges, jurors, attorneys, and litigants in all civil cases conducted in Maricopa, Pima, Mohave, and Yavapai counties in Arizona between June 15, 1997, and January 31, 1998. Civil cases in the participating courts were randomly assigned to one of two experimental conditions: (1) jurors were told they could discuss the evidence prior to deliberation according to Rule 39(f) of the Arizona Rules of Civil Procedure, or (2) jurors were told they could not discuss the evidence per the previous admonition. The datasets contain survey responses under both conditions. Part 1, Case Characteristics Data, contains information from two questionnaires completed by judges about the lawsuit, the parties, the trial procedures, and the case outcome. The data in Part 2, Juror Questionnaire Data, cover jurors' views regarding the complexity of the case, the importance of witnesses and testimonies, and attorneys' performances. The variables in Part 3, Attorney Questionnaire Data, offer information on attorneys' opinions of the jurors, the opposing counsel, and the verdict. Part 4, Litigant Questionniare Data, consists of litigants' views regarding the jurors and the verdict. Demographic data include respondents' gender, age, race, income, and job status.

Curated

Legal Representation Data, 1970 (ICPSR 7540)

Released/updated on: 2009-11-19

This data collection contains legal representation information gathered in a 1970 survey of 474 attorneys across the United States, which garnered 221 usable responses. The research objectives included: (1) determining the relationship between the behavior of the attorneys in representing indigent or unpopular clients and the attitudes, specialties, backgrounds, and environments of the attorneys, (2) arriving at some policy recommendations for increasing the representation of indigent and unpopular clients, and (3) analyzing the joint causation phenomenon whereby neither favorable attitudes nor favorable opportunities alone lead to representation of the unpopular, but the combination of both together does so substantially. Survey information gathered includes respondents' attitudes toward: (1) the legal profession, (2) unpopular or indigent clients, (3) sociopolitical issues regarding the poor, and (4) the system of legal representation. Respondents were asked for their experiences when representing unpopular or indigent clients and to give reasons they might not choose to represent such clients. Background information includes characteristics of the respondent's community as well as respondent's race, gender, natality, father's occupation, political party affiliation, political offices held, religious preference, type of practice, and percent of clients from ethnic and racial minorities.

Curated

Legal Service Agencies, 1970 (ICPSR 7369)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

These data, focusing on the effectiveness of legal service programs, were collected by the Office of Legal Services under the Office of Economic Opportunity. The data include information about each agency, its budget, and the characteristics of its clients and personnel. Evaluations of the agency's effectiveness and operation were made by a visiting observer based on consultations with staff and community members. Evaluative measures include community attitudes, agency resources, and staff competence.

Curated

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

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

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

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 Lawyers' Career Satisfaction, Wave I, 1984, and Wave II, 1990 (ICPSR 8975)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this data collection was to assess career satisfaction among young lawyers throughout the United States. The questionnaire was designed to include as many factors as possible that might reasonably affect job satisfaction. The 1984 survey solicited information on lawyers' job descriptions, educational background, psychological characteristics, and basic demographics. Other questions pertained to job setting, substantive law areas of the respondent, geographical area in which the law firm was located, time spent each day on certain projects, and job stress. The 1990 survey posed questions identical to those in the 1984 survey, and added items covering part-time work, referral plans, sexual harassment in the workplace, gender and racial biases, reasons for changing jobs, drug use, disabilities, law school activities, and weighted job satisfaction scales.

Curated

Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases in the United States, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2556)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Minnesota, California, Washington

Time period: 1993-01-01--1994-01-01

The purpose of this project was to evaluate the level of domestic violence prosecution throughout the United States and to promote effective prosecution approaches through dissemination of information. The project sought to identify and connect local attorneys' needs for information with the best knowledge available on the most effective prosecution methods. In order to appraise domestic violence prosecution in the United States, the researchers mailed a survey to a nationally-representative sample of prosecutors to assess prosecution strategies in domestic violence cases (Part 1, Prosecutors' Survey Data). Smaller jurisdictions had such a low response rate to the initial survey that a modified follow-up survey (Part 2, Prosecutors' Follow-Up Data) was administered to those jurisdictions. From these surveys, the researchers identified three sites with pioneering specialized domestic violence prosecution programs: Duluth, Minnesota, King County, Washington, and San Francisco, California. In these three sites, the researchers then conducted a case file analysis of a random sample of domestic violence cases (Part 3, Case File Data). A survey of a random sample of female victims was also undertaken in King County and San Francisco (Part 4, Victim Interview Data). In addition, the researchers conducted on-site evaluations of these three specialized programs in which they interviewed staff about the scope of the domestic violence problem, domestic violence support personnel, the impact of the program on the domestic violence problem, and recommendations for the future. The qualitative data collected from these evaluations are provided only in the codebook for this collection. Parts 1 and 2, the Prosecutors' Surveys, contain variables about case management, case screening and charging, pretrial release policies, post-charge diversion, trial, sentencing options, victim support programs, and office and jurisdiction demographics. Questions cover the volume of domestic violence prosecutions, formal protocols for domestic violence prosecution, ways to deal with uncooperative victims, pro-arrest and no-drop policies, protection orders, types of evidence used, and collaboration with other organizations to prosecute domestic violence cases. In addition, Part 1 includes variables on diversion programs, victim noncompliance, substance abuse problems, victim support programs, and plea negotiations. Variables in Part 3, Case File Data, deal with reporting, initial and final charges, injuries sustained, weapons used, evidence available, protection orders issued, victim cooperation, police testimony, disposition, sentence, costs, and restitution for each domestic violence case. Part 4, Victim Interview Data, includes variables concerning victims' employment history, number of children, and substance abuse, opinions about the charges against the defendant, decision-making in the case, and prosecution strategies, and victims' participation in the case, amount of support from and contact with criminal justice agencies, safety concerns, and performance evaluations of various levels of the criminal justice system.

Curated

Public Attitudes Toward Lawyers and Legal Disputes, 1993: [United States] (ICPSR 6403)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection examines public attitudes, opinions, and experiences with respect to lawyers and legal disputes and the effects that prior experiences have on the future likelihood of using the law to settle disputes. Variables refer to types and outcomes of legal disputes, selection of lawyers, gender and age of lawyers, number of contacts, size of legal firms, the extent of services the lawyers provided to clients, and the behavior of lawyers. The unit of analysis is the individual.

Curated

Repeat Offender Laws in the United States: Forms, Uses, and Perceived Value, 1983 (ICPSR 9328)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States

This survey of prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges in jurisdictions with sentence enhancement statutes for repeat offenders collected information about the characteristics of the laws and criminal justice professionals regarding the fairness, effectiveness, and practice of the laws. The jurisdiction file includes variables such as jurisdiction size, number of provisions in the law, number of felony cases handled under the law per year, number of defendants sentenced as repeat offenders, frequency of charging and sentencing under the law, and minimum and maximum sentences specified in the statutes. The variables in the three surveys of practitioners contain data related to their familiarity with the laws, descriptions of recent cases, and satisfaction with the new statutes.

Curated

Restricted

The Role of Indigent Defense for Defendants with Mental Health Disorders, New York, 2013-2015 (ICPSR 36736)

Released/updated on: 2024-05-29

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

Time period: 2013-10-01--2015-05-01

The incarceration of people with mental health disorders represents a significant public health crisis. People with mental health needs are over-represented in the justice system and in 2009 alone there were an estimated 2 million bookings of individuals with mental health disorders into United States jails, equivalent to approximately 18 percent of all admissions (Steadman et al., 2009).

While some indigent defense offices employ social workers or staff with clinical training to assess client needs and advise attorneys on defense strategies, there are far more public defenders that do not have access to these resources. While millions of people with mental illness are arrested every year, there continues to be challenges inherent in representing this population or the training and support needs of public defenders.

This project addresses examines the needs of defendants with mental health disorders and the specific challenges that attorneys face when representing these individuals. Specifically, the Vera Institute of Justice (Vera) and Policy Research Associates Inc. (PRA) used multiple methods to assess the dual perspective of defendants and defenders concerning:

The link between mental health and justice involvement
Perceptions of the attorney-client relationship and satisfaction with case outcomes
The needs of defendants with mental health disorders
How a client's mental health impacts defenders' strategy

Curated

State and Local Prosecution and Civil Attorney Systems, 1976 (ICPSR 7674)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this data collection was to establish a current name and address listing of state and local government prosecution and civil attorney agencies and to obtain information about agency function, jurisdiction, employment, funding, and attorney compensation arrangements. The data for each agency include information for any identifiable local police prosecutors. Excluded from the study were private law firms that perform legal services periodically for a government and are compensated by retainers and fees. Variables cover agency functions and jurisdiction, agency funding, number and types of employees, compensation and employment restrictions for attorneys, agency's geographical jurisdiction, number of branch offices, and number of branch office employees.

Curated

Survey of Lawyers in the Metropolitan New York Media Market, 1989 (ICPSR 9823)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

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

The purpose of this data collection was twofold. The survey was designed to ascertain the attitudes of attorneys regarding new techniques for obtaining clients, such as media advertising and solicitation, as well as their attitudes toward pro bono service, and to test whether attitudinal differences are related to demographic or organizational characteristics of the profession. A second purpose of the study was to serve as a screener to identify a group of attorneys in solo and small-firm practice who use new types of business-getting techniques. Variables in the collection include respondent attitudes toward advertising, unions, and pro bono cases, information on type of firm, number of attorneys in the firm, type of legal practice and legal specialty, and demographic information such as religious affiliation, membership in local clubs or associations, college attended, marital status, number of children, income, number of years practicing law, and parents' occupations.

Curated

Systems and Training Requirements for Criminal Justice Participants (PROJECT STAR), 1971-1974: California, Michigan, New Jersey, Texas (ICPSR 8392)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States, Texas, California, New Jersey, Michigan

Time period: 1971-01-01--1974-01-01

Project STAR was designed to collect information about the various roles of operational criminal justice personnel in order to assist in the design of educational and training programs for these personnel. Data were collected from a two-part questionnaire administered to criminal justice personnel in four states: California, Michigan, New Jersey, and Texas. The first part of the questionnaire contained personal, attitudinal, and opinion items as well as questions concerning the goals of the criminal justice system. The second part presented 97 situations that the respondent was asked to rank using a five-part scale. The situations dealt with the roles of police officers, prosecuting attorneys, defense attorneys, judges, probation officers, correctional officers, and parole officers. Demographic information about the respondents includes age, sex, race, educational attainment, occupation and employing agency, and income.

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.

Curated

Use of Adjuncts to Supplement Judicial Resources in Six Jurisdictions, 1983-1986: [United States] (ICPSR 8979)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: Oregon, United States, Connecticut, Minnesota, Arizona, Washington

Time period: 1983-01-01--1986-01-01

This multi-site data collection evaluates the impact of judicial adjunct attorneys and referees on the court system at the county and state levels in six jurisdictions: (1) Pima County, Arizona, (2) Multnomah County, Oregon, (3) King County, Washington, (4) Hennepin County, Minnesota, (5) Phoenix, Arizona, and (6) the state of Connecticut. There are three different units of observation in this study: (1) civil trial cases, (2) trial judges, including regular judges and adjunct attorneys, and (3) litigating attorneys. The court case data include information on type of case, date of trial, type of judge, type of disposition, and date of disposition. For the questionnaire data obtained on judges, adjuncts, and litigating attorneys, information includes experience with the program, satisfaction, and ideas for changes.

Curated

Restricted

Waiver of Attorney in Juvenile Court, Massachusetts and Virginia, 2014-2018 (ICPSR 37194)

Released/updated on: 2022-07-14

Geographic coverage: United States, Massachusetts, Virginia

Time period: 2014-01-01--2018-01-01

The goal of this study is to examine age-based differences in knowledge and beliefs regarding the role of counsel, presumptions about counsel, and maturity of judgement when making decisions about whether to waive the right to counsel or the right to trial in a plea context. The study extends existing limited work on age-based differences in knowledge and decision making in several ways that improve ecological validity. The study examines knowledge, beliefs, and decisions among parent-youth pairs from the same family. This sampling strategy more closely approximates the real-life circumstances of waiver of counsel in which knowledge, beliefs, and decisions are nested and tested within family units. The dyadic analysis can offer insight into the challenges and opportunities that face youthful defendants at these critical junctures in case processing. It provides information about whether parents and youth understand these rights and whether assumptions that parents compensate for youths' lack of knowledge is reasonable.