Search results

Showing 1 – 50 of 184 results.

Curated

Adolescent Sexual Assault Victims' Experiences with SANE-SARTs and the Criminal Justice System, 1998-2007 (ICPSR 29721)

Released/updated on: 2013-12-13

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1998-01-01--2007-01-01

The study examined adolescent sexual assault survivors' help-seeking experiences with the legal and medical systems in two Midwestern communities that have different models of Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner (SANE)/Sexual Assault Response Team (SART) interventions.

In Dataset 1 (Qualitative Victim Interviews), investigators conducted qualitative interviews with N=20 adolescent sexual assault victims 14-17 years old. From these interviews, investigators identified three distinct patterns of survivors' post-assault disclosures and their pathways to seeking help from SANE programs and the criminal justice system: voluntary (survivors' contact with the legal and medical system was by their choice), involuntary (system contact was not by choice), and situational (circumstances of the assault itself prompted involuntary disclosure). Interviews included responses that described the assault, their experience with both the SANE/SART programs and the criminal justice system, and victim and offender demographic information.

In Dataset 2 (SANE Programs Quantitative Data), investigators obtained SANE program records, police and prosecutor records, and crime lab findings for a sample of N=395 (ages 13-17) adolescent sexual assault victims who sought services from the local SANE programs in two different counties. The data collected examined victim's progress through the criminal justice system. Factors that could potentially affect case progression were also examined; age of victim, relationship to offender, assault characteristics, number of assaults on victim, and evidence collected. Differences between the two different counties' programs were also examined for their effect on the case progression.

Curated

AIDS-Related Written Court Decisions in Federal and State Courts, 1984-1989: [United States] (ICPSR 6502)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1984-01-01--1989-01-01

This data collection was designed to identify the party characteristics, case attributes, and idea structures of written court decisions related to Auto-Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). Written court decisions related to AIDS in state and federal courts were located via the LEXUS and WESTLAW data systems. For a case to be eligible, it had to address an issue involving AIDS or involve a party who was believed to be infected with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV), and a legal decision had to provide sufficient written material to analyze. Coding was completed by three individuals with legal training based on a team-developed codebook. Except in those areas where a preliminary test showed 90-percent reliability, variables were coded based on a consensus rule. Variables include court jurisdiction, whether the case was civil or criminal, case issue area, gender of plaintiff, relationship between parties, demand and primary purpose of the demand by the defendant and the plaintiff, what the court explicitly relied upon for its decision, whether the plaintiff or defendant had AIDS, AIDS-Related Complex (ARC), or was HIV-infected, and whether the plaintiff or defendant was gay, an IV drug user, a prisoner or an accused criminal, a member of a stigmatized group, or a racial or an ethnic minority. The unit of analysis is the written court decision.

Curated

Alternative Procedures for Reducing Delays in Criminal Appeals: Sacramento, Springfield, and Rhode Island, 1983-1984 (ICPSR 9965)

Released/updated on: 1994-02-17

Geographic coverage: Rhode Island, Sacramento, United States, Illinois, Springfield, California

Time period: 1983-01-01--1984-01-01

This data collection investigates the effectiveness of alternative approaches to reducing delays in criminal appeals. Interviews were conducted with court representatives from districts employing differing alternatives. These districts and approaches are (1) case management in the Illinois Appellate Court, Fourth District, in Springfield, (2) staff screening for submission without oral argument in the California Court of Appeals, Third District, in Sacramento, and (3) fast-tracking procedures in the Rhode Island Supreme Court. Parallel interviews were conducted in public defenders' offices in three additional locations: Colorado, the District of Columbia, and Minnesota. Questions focused on the backlogs courts were facing, the reasons for the backlogs, and the consequences. Participants were asked about the fairness and possible consequences of procedures employed by their courts and other courts in this study. Case data were acquired from court records of the Springfield, Sacramento, and Rhode Island courts.

Curated

Restricted

Analysis of Current Cold-Case Investigation Practices and Factors Associated with Successful Outcomes, 2008-2009 (ICPSR 33761)

Released/updated on: 2016-12-19

Geographic coverage: District of Columbia, Baltimore, United States, Texas, Colorado, Denver, Dallas, Maryland

Time period: 2008-11-01--2009-02-01

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

To assess the current practices in cold-case investigations, this study utilized a national online survey of law enforcement agencies (Cold Case Survey Data, n = 1,051) to document the range of ways in which cold-case work is conducted and assess how this organization affects cold-case clearance rates. In November 2008, the chiefs of police in the sample were sent a letter explaining the purpose of the survey and inviting them to participate. Potential respondents were directed to the web-based survey instrument through a provided web address. The results from the national survey were used to select sites for an analysis of case files. Researchers chose three jurisdictions that conducted a large number of cold-case homicide investigations: the District of Columbia, Baltimore, Maryland, and Dallas, Texas (Cold Case Homicide Data, n = 429). To these three sites, researchers added Denver, Colorado (Cold Case Sexual Assault Data, n = 105) because it had received a Department of Justice grant to conduct testing of DNA material in sexual assault cold cases. At all four sites, cold cases were examined for seven categories of data including victim's characteristics, crime context, motivation, human capital, physical evidence, basis for cold-case investigations and cold-case actions.

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

Arkansas Juvenile Court Records, 1991-1993 (ICPSR 6808)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Arkansas

Time period: 1991-01-01--1993-01-01

This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases). Inaugurated in 1983, the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts began to collect data from intake and probation departments on each case disposed during the previous calendar year. The data include a record of each case processed formally with petition for each delinquency, dependent/neglect, or family in need of services case disposed. Information is provided on county, case type, date of filing, reason for referral to the courts, and the court action.

Curated

Arkansas Juvenile Court Records, 1994 (ICPSR 6883)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Arkansas

This data collection describes in quantitative terms the volume of juvenile cases disposed in 1994 by courts having jurisdiction over juvenile matters (delinquency, status offense, and dependency cases) in Arkansas. Inaugurated in 1983, the Arkansas Administrative Office of the Courts began to collect data from intake and probation departments on each case disposed during the previous calendar year. The data include a record of each case processed formally with petition and contain an individual record on each family in need of services, delinquency, or dependency/neglect case disposed.

Curated

Assessment of a Multiagency Approach to Drug-Involved Gang Members in San Diego County, California, 1988-1992 (ICPSR 2022)

Released/updated on: 2002-03-05

Geographic coverage: United States, California

Time period: 1988-01-01--1992-01-01

In 1988, with funds from the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) via the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1987, a multiagency task force, Jurisdictions Unified for Drug Gang Enforcement (JUDGE), was created. Spearheaded by the San Diego County District Attorney's Office and representing a unique blend of police officers, probation officers, and deputy district attorneys working together, the JUDGE program targeted documented gang members also involved in drug use and sales. The task force incorporated an intensive supervision approach that enforced conditions of probation and drug laws and provided vertical prosecution for probation violations and new offenses involving targeted offenders. This research project sought to address the following research objectives: (1) to determine if the JUDGE program objectives were met during the grant period, (2) to assess the results of program activities, such as surveillance, special enforcement, and vertical prosecution, in terms of probation violations, arrests, pretrial custody, probation revocations, convictions, and sentences, (3) to evaluate the impact of the program on offenders as measured by recidivism and the need for probation intervention, (4) to assess the cost of JUDGE probation compared to regular probation caseloads, and (5) to provide recommendations regarding the implementation of similar programs in other jurisdictions. This research project consisted of a process evaluation and an impact assessment that focused on the first two years of the JUDGE program, when youthful offenders were the targets (1988 and 1989). The research effort focused only on new targets for whom adequate records were maintained, yielding a study size of 279. The tracking period for targets ended in 1992. For the impact assessment, the research was structured as a within-subjects design, with the comparison focusing on target youths two years before the implementation of JUDGE and the same group two years after being targeted by JUDGE. Data were compiled on the juveniles' age at target, race, sex, gang affiliation, type of target (gang member, drug history, and/or ward), status when targeted, and referrals to other agencies. Variables providing data on criminal histories include age at first contact/arrest, instant offense and disposition, highest charges for each subsequent arrest that resulted in probation supervision, drug charges, highest conviction charges, probation conditions before selection date and after JUDGE target, number of contacts by probation and JUDGE staff, number of violations for each probation condition and action taken, and new offenses during probation. For the process evaluation, case outcome data were compared to project objectives to measure compliance in terms of program implementation and results. Variables include number of violations for each probation condition and action taken, and number of failed drug tests. The consequences of increased probation supervision, including revocation, sentences, custody time, and use of vertical prosecution, were addressed by comparing the processing of cases prior to the implementation of JUDGE to case processing after JUDGE targeting.

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

Bethlehem [Pennsylvania] Police Family Group Conferencing Project, 1993-1997 (ICPSR 2679)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Bethlehem, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1993-01-01--1997-01-01

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the implementation of conferencing as a restorative policing practice. Family group conferencing is considered an important new development in restorative justice practice as a means of dealing more effectively with young first-time offenders by diverting them from court and involving their extended families and victims in conferences to address their wrongdoing. Cases deemed eligible for the study were property crimes including retail and other thefts, criminal mischief and trespass, and violent crimes including threats, harassment, disorderly conduct, and simple assaults. A total of 140 property crime cases and 75 violent crime cases were selected for the experiment, with two-thirds of each type randomly assigned to a diversionary conference (treatment group) and one-third of each type assigned to formal adjudication (control group). Participation in the conference was voluntary. If either party declined or if the offender did not admit responsibility for the offense, the case was processed through normal criminal justice channels. Those cases constituted a second treatment group (decline group). The Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, Police Department and the Community Service Foundation conducted a two-year study on the effectiveness of police-based family group conferencing. Beginning on November 1, 1995, 64 conferences were conducted for the study. Approximately two weeks after their cases were disposed, victims, offenders, and offenders' parents in the three experimental groups (control, conference, decline) were surveyed by mail, in-person interviews, or telephone interviews. Those who participated in conferences (Parts 4, 6, and 8) received a different questionnaire than those whose cases went through formal adjudication (Parts 5, 7, and 9), with similar questions to allow for comparison and some questions particular to the type of processing used on their case. Disposition data on cases were collected from five district magistrates in Bethlehem from January 1, 1993, to September 12, 1997. Data on recidivism and outcomes of the control and decline group cases were obtained from (1) the Bethlehem Police Department arrest database (Part 1) and (2) a database of records from the five district magistrates serving Bethlehem, drawn from a statewide magistrate court database compiled by the Administrative Office of Pennsylvania Courts (Part 2). An attitudinal and work environment survey was administered to the Bethlehem Police Department on two occasions, just before the conferencing program commenced (pre-test) and eighteen months later (post-test) (Part 3). Part 1 variables include offender age, year of offense, charge code, amounts of fine and payments, crime type, offender crime category, and disposition. Part 2 collected disposition data on cases in the study and officers' observations on the conferences. Demographic variables include offender's age at current arrest, ethnicity, and gender. Other variables include type of charge, arrest, disposition, sentence, and recidivism, reason not conferenced, current recorded charge class, amounts of total fines, hours of community service, and conditions of sentence. Part 3 collected information on police attitudes and work environment before and after the conferencing program. Variables on organizational issues include ratings on communication, morale, co-workers, supervision, administration, amenities, equipment, and promotions. Variables on operational issues include ratings on danger, victims, frustration, external activities, complaints, workload, and driving. In Parts 4 to 9, researchers asked offenders, parents of offenders, and victims about their perceptions of how their cases were handled by the justice system and the fairness of the process, their attitudes and beliefs about the justice system, and their attitudes toward the victim and offender. Variables include whether the respondent was satisfied with the way the justice system handled the case, if the offender was held accountable for the offense, if meeting with the victim was helpful, if the respondent was surprised by anything in the conference, if the respondent told the victim/offender how he/she felt, if there was an opportunity to reach an agreement acceptable to all, if the offender/parents apologized, if the victim/parents had a better opinion of the offender after the conference, what the respondent's attitude toward the conference was, if the respondent would recommend a conference to others, if the offender was pressured to do all the talking, if the offender was treated with respect, if victim participation was insincere, if the respondent had a better understanding of how the victim was affected, if the victim only wanted to be paid back, and if conferences were responsive to needs.

Curated

Caseflow Management and Delay Reduction in Urban Trial Courts of the United States, 1979, 1983-1985 (ICPSR 9918)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1983-01-01--1985-01-01

The purpose of this study was to examine caseflow management in order to reduce delays in urban trial courts. The data contain information from court records that reached disposition in a cross-section of urban general-jurisdiction trial courts during 1979, 1983, 1984, and 1985. The 1979 data files contain the baseline data for this survey. Data were gathered on civil and criminal case processing times across a broad range of courts, and changes in case processing times over a period of years were analyzed for 18 different jurisdictions: Newark, Pittsburgh, New Orleans, Miami, Wayne County, Minneapolis, the Bronx, Phoenix, Portland, San Diego, Dayton, Boston, Cleveland, Providence, Wichita, Detroit, Oakland, and Jersey City. The data are supplemented by information supplied by trial court administrators and presiding judges in the courts participating in the study. Data include information on the nature of the case, the dates of first and last trials, and the total number of trials and their manner of disposition.

Curated

Case Tracking and Mapping System Developed for the United States Attorney's Office, Southern District of New York, 1997-1998 (ICPSR 2929)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-18

Geographic coverage: United States, New York (state)

Time period: 1997-07-01--1998-10-01

This collection grew out of a prototype case tracking and crime mapping application that was developed for the United States Attorney's Office (USAO), Southern District of New York (SDNY). The purpose of creating the application was to move from the traditionally episodic way of handling cases to a comprehensive and strategic method of collecting case information and linking it to specific geographic locations, and collecting information either not handled at all or not handled with sufficient enough detail by SDNY's existing case management system. The result was an end-user application designed to be run largely by SDNY's nontechnical staff. It consisted of two components, a database to capture case tracking information and a mapping component to link case and geographic data. The case tracking data were contained in a Microsoft Access database and the client application contained all of the forms, queries, reports, macros, table links, and code necessary to enter, navigate through, and query the data. The mapping application was developed using Environmental Systems Research Institute's (ESRI) ArcView 3.0a GIS. This collection shows how the user-interface of the database and the mapping component were customized to allow the staff to perform spatial queries without having to be geographic information systems (GIS) experts. Part 1 of this collection contains the Visual Basic script used to customize the user-interface of the Microsoft Access database. Part 2 contains the Avenue script used to customize ArcView to link the data maintained in the server databases, to automate the office's most common queries, and to run simple analyses.

Curated

Changing Patterns of Drug Abuse and Criminality Among Crack Cocaine Users in New York City: Criminal Histories and Criminal Justice System Processing, 1983-1984, 1986 (ICPSR 9790)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

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

Time period: 1983-01-01--1984-01-01

This data collection compares a sample of persons arrested for offenses related to crack cocaine with a sample arrested for offenses related to powdered cocaine. The collection is one of two parts of a study designed to examine the characteristics of crack users and sellers, the impact of large numbers of crack-related offenders on the criminal justice system, and their effects on drug treatment and community programs. Official arrest records and supplementary data bases are used to analyze the official arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories of powdered cocaine and crack defendants. Questions addressed by the collection include: (1) How are defendants charged with crack-related offenses different from defendants charged with offenses related to powdered cocaine? (2) Is there a difference between the ways the criminal justice system handles crack offenders and powdered cocaine offenders in pretrial detention, charges filed, case dispositions, and sentencing? (3) How do the criminal careers of crack offenders compare with the criminal careers of powdered cocaine offenders, especially in terms of total arrest rates, frequencies of nondrug crimes, and frequencies of violent crimes? (4) Is violence more strongly associated with crack dealing than with powdered cocaine dealing? and (5) How does the developmental history of powdered cocaine sales and possession compare with the history of crack sales and possession? Variables include demographic information such as gender, residence, and race, arrest, conviction, and incarceration histories, prior criminal record, community ties, and court outcomes of the arrests.

Curated

Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1992 (ICPSR 6587)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-02

Geographic coverage: United States

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

This survey is the first broad-based, systematic examination of the nature of civil litigation in state general jurisdiction trial courts. Data collection was carried out by the National Center for State Courts with assistance from the National Association of Criminal Justice Planners and the United States Bureau of the Census. The data collection produced two datasets. Part 1, Tort, Contract, and Real Property Rights Data, is a merged sample of approximately 30,000 tort, contract, and real property rights cases disposed during the 12-month period ending June 30, 1992. Part 2, Civil Jury Cases Data, is a sample of about 6,500 jury trial cases disposed over the same time period. Data collected include information about litigants, case type, disposition type, processing time, case outcome, and award amounts for civil jury cases.

Curated

Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 1996 (ICPSR 2883)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-02

Geographic coverage: United States

In 1996, the Bureau of Justice Statistics awarded a grant to the National Center for State Courts to gather detailed information on tort, contract, and real property rights trial cases in 45 jurisdictions chosen to represent the 75 most populous counties in the nation. The result is this survey, which is a systematic examination of civil trial cases disposed in state general jurisdiction courts. The study expands the 1992 civil jury study, CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1992 (ICPSR 6587), by specifically sampling bench and jury trial cases. Information gathered includes the type of case, the presence of legal representation, the type of litigation, the amount of compensatory damages awarded, the amount of punitive damages awarded, and case processing time.

Curated

Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2001 (ICPSR 3957)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-03

Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection examined general civil cases (torts, contracts, and real property) disposed of by bench or jury trial in the nation's 75 most populous counties in 2001. Information reported includes the type of case, types of plaintiffs and defendants, trial winners, amount of total damages awarded, amount of punitive damages awarded, and case processing time. This is the third in a series of data collections begun in 1992: CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1992 (ICPSR 6587), and CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1996 (ICPSR 2883).

Curated

Civil Justice Survey of State Courts, 2005 (ICPSR 23862)

Released/updated on: 2011-11-02

Geographic coverage: United States

The Civil Justice Survey of State Courts (CJSSC), 2005 is a systematic examination of general civil (that is, tort, contract, and real property) cases disposed of by bench or jury trial in a national sample of state courts of general jurisdiction in 2005. This study expands on the 1992, 1996, and 2001 CJSSC by collecting a nationally representative sample of bench and jury trials concluded in 156 urban, suburban, and rural counties. Prior iterations of the CJSSC focused on general civil cases concluded by bench or jury trial in a sample of the nation's 75 most populous counties. The 2005 CJSSC was designed and carried out by the National Center for State Courts. Westat designed the national sampling framework for this survey. The data collection produced two datasets. The first contains information on general civil (tort, contract, and real property) cases disposed of by bench or jury trial in a national sample of counties in 2005. Detailed case level information was obtained on these trials, including types of civil cases litigated at trial, characteristics of litigants involved in trials, who wins in trials, compensatory award amounts, punitive damages, case processing times, and post-trial litigation. The other data file contains aggregate information on the number of general civil trial and nontrial dispositions that occurred in 2005 in CJSCC counties that had the capacity to provide these data. This is the fourth in a series of data collections begun in 1992 [CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1992 (ICPSR 6587), CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 1996 (ICPSR 2883), and CIVIL JUSTICE SURVEY OF STATE COURTS, 2001 (ICPSR 3957)].

Curated

Civil Justice Survey of Trials on Appeal, 2005 (ICPSR 32501)

Released/updated on: 2012-01-10

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2005-01-01--2010-01-01

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Civil Justice Survey of Trials on Appeal (CJSTA) was based on 26,950 general civil (i.e., tort, contract, and real property) cases that were disposed by bench or jury trial in 156 counties participating in the 2005 Civil Justice Survey of State Courts (ICPSR 23862). Subsequently, 3,970 of those cases were appealed to 84 appellate courts in 35 states. This data collection examines civil bench and jury trials concluded in state trial courts in 2005 that were appealed to an intermediate appellate court or court of last resort. It is the first report based on data collected in the Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) Civil Justice Survey of Trials on Appeal (CJSTA). The CJSTA included information from court records on civil trials concluded in 2005 and tracked the subsequent appeals from 2005 through March 2010. Information collected included the types of civil cases appealed, appeals dismissed or withdrawn before being decided on the merits, and appeals resulting in the trial court decision being reversed or affirmed. The time from the filing of an appeal to final appellate court disposition was also measured.

Curated

Community Context and Sentencing Decisions in 39 Counties in the United States, 1998 (ICPSR 3923)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

This study aimed to understand the extent to which punishment is influenced by the larger social context in which it occurs by examining both the main and conditioning influence of community context on individual sentences. The primary research questions for this study were (1) Does community context affect sentencing outcomes for criminal defendants net of the influence of defendant and case characteristics? and (2) Does community context condition the influences of defendant age, race, and sex on sentencing outcomes? Data from the 1998 State Court Processing Statistics (SCPS) were merged with a unique county-level dataset that provided information on the characteristics of the counties in which defendants were adjudicated. County-level data included unemployment, crime rates, sex ratio, age structure, religious group affiliation, and political orientation.

Curated

Court Workforce Racial Diversity and Racial Justice in Criminal Case Outcomes in the United States, 2000-2005 (ICPSR 25423)

Released/updated on: 2009-06-25

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2000-01-01--2005-01-01

The purpose of this study was to determine whether workgroup racial composition is related to sentence outcomes generally, and racial differences in sentencing in particular, across federal districts. This collection contains information on federal court district characteristics. Data include information about the social context, court context, and diversity of the courtroom workgroup for 90 federal judicial districts provided by 50 judicial district context variables.

Curated

Criminal Case Processing in Metropolitan Courts, 1976 (ICPSR 7750)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

In 1977 the National Center for State Courts, in cooperation with the National Conference of Metropolitan Courts, began a research and demonstration project on the delay in processing criminal cases in major metropolitan courts. The objectives were (1) to determine the scope and extent of the delay in such courts, (2) to identify factors associated with the delay, and (3) to suggest and ultimately test techniques that might work to reduce the delay. The variables include geographic location, disposition type, most serious charge against the defendant, and dates of arrest, trial, disposition, and sentencing.

Curated

Criminal Justice Response to Victim Harm in the United States, 1981 (ICPSR 8249)

Released/updated on: 2006-01-12

Geographic coverage: United States

This data collection examines the ways in which victim harm affects decisions regarding arrest, prosecution, and sentencing, and the impact of these decisions on the victim's perception of the criminal justice system. Five types of offenses were studied: homicide, sexual assault, burglary, robbery, and aggravated assault. The victim file contains information on personal characteristics, results of victimization, involvement in case processing, use of victim assistance service, satisfaction with case outcomes, and opinions about the court system. The police file and the prosecutor file variables cover personal background, screening decisions on scenario cases, communication with victims, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system. The prosecutor file also includes sentencing recommendations on the scenarios. Data in the judge file cover personal background, sentencing recommendations on the scenario cases, communications with victims, sources of information regarding victim harm, and opinions about the role of victims in the criminal justice system.

Curated

Restricted

Decision Making in Sexual Assault Cases: Replication Research on Sexual Violence Case Attrition in the United States, 2006-2012 (ICPSR 37181)

Released/updated on: 2019-04-29

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2006-01-01--2012-01-01

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

The study contains data on sexual assault cases reported to the police for the years 2006-2012, collected from six police agencies and also their corresponding public prosecutor's offices across the United States. The study analyzed the attrition of sexual assault cases from the criminal justice system.

This study includes two SPSS data files:

Court-Form-2008-2010-Sample-Revised-Nov-2018.sav (801 variables, 417 cases)
Police-Form-2008-2010-Sample-Revised-Nov-2018.sav (1,276 variables, 3,269 cases)

This study also includes two SPSS syntax files:

ICPSR-Court-Form-Variable-Construction-2008-2010.sps
ICPSR-Constructed-Variables-Syntax.sps

The study also contains qualitative data which are not available as part of this data collection at this time. The qualitative data includes interviews, field observations, and focus groups which were conducted with key personnel to examine organizational and cultural dimensions of handling sexual assault cases in order to understand how these factors influence case outcomes.

Curated

Decision-Making in the Juvenile Justice System in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3581)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, Michigan

Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-01-01

The goals of the juvenile justice system in the United States have always been multiple, beginning with rehabilitation, the primary goal when the juvenile court was established. More recently, policies advocating accountability seem to have predominated over other goals of the court, and concern exists that structured decision-making (SDM) in support of individual accountability has begun to fundamentally change the juvenile justice system. This study examined the use of SDM in state correctional agencies in Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, and Ohio and in juvenile courts in three counties in each of those states. Data were collected in phases from March 1999 to August 2000 during periodic site visits. Probation officers, judges and referees, prosecutors, and defense attorneys were interviewed in each of the 12 courts. Each survey contained a core set of questions eliciting respondents' views of juvenile justice, disposition objectives, and the use and value of SDM. Questions relevant to particular decision-makers were also included. All respondents provided demographic information and information about their job experience in criminal justice and professional training.

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

Early Identification of the Serious Habitual Juvenile Offender Using a Birth Cohort in Philadelphia, 1958-1984 (ICPSR 2312)

Released/updated on: 2008-04-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Time period: 1958-01-01--1984-01-01

Beginning in the mid-1980s, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded the creation of Habitual Offender Units (HOUs) in 13 cities. HOUs were created to prosecute habitual juvenile offenders by deploying the most experienced attorneys to handle these cases from start to finish. By targeting the earliest points in the career sequence of the juvenile offenders, the greatest number of serious offenses can potentially be averted. Selection criteria to qualify for priority prosecution by an HOU usually encompassed one or more generic components relating to aspects of a juvenile's present and prior offense record. In Philadelphia, to be designated a serious habitual offender and to qualify for priority prosecution by the HOU, a youth had to have two or more prior adjudications or open cases for specific felonies, as well as a current arrest for a specified felony. The first three police contacts in a Philadelphia juvenile offender's record were of special interest because they included the earliest point (i.e., the third contact) at which a youth could be prosecuted in the Philadelphia HOU, under their selection criteria. The main objectives of this study were to determine how well the selection criteria identified serious habitual offenders and which variables, reflecting HOU selection criteria, criminal histories, and personal characteristics, were most strongly and consistently related to the frequency and seriousness of future juvenile and young adult offending. To accomplish this, an assessment was conducted using a group of juveniles born in 1958 whose criminal career outcomes were already known. Applying the HOU selection criteria to this group made it possible to determine the extent to which the criteria identified future habitual offending. Data for the analyses were obtained from a birth cohort of Black and white males born in 1958 who resided in Philadelphia from their 10th through their 18th birthdays. Criminal careers represent police contacts for the juvenile years and arrests for the young adult years, for which police contacts and arrests are synonymous. The 40 dependent variables were computed using 5 different criminal career aspects for 4 crime type groups for 2 age intervals. The data also contain various dummy variables related to prior offenses, including type of offense, number of prior offenses, disposition of the offenses, age at first prior offense, seriousness of first prior offense, weapon used, and whether it was a gang-related offense. Dummy variables pertaining to the current offenses include type of offense, number of crime categories, number of charges, number of offenders, gender, race, and age of offenders, type of intimidation used, weapons used, number of crime victims, gender, race, and age of victims, type of injury to victim, type of victimization, characteristics of offense site, type of complainant, and police response. Percentile of the offender's socioeconomic status is also provided. Continuous variables include age at first prior offense, age at most recent prior offense, age at current offense, and average age of victims.

Curated

Effectiveness of Alternative Victim Assistance Service Delivery Models in the San Diego Region, 1993-1994 (ICPSR 2789)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: San Diego, United States, California

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

This study had a variety of aims: (1) to assess the needs of violent crime victims, (2) to document the services that were available to violent crime victims in the San Diego region, (3) to assess the level of service utilization by different segments of the population, (4) to determine how individuals cope with victimization and how coping ability varies as a function of victim and crime characteristics, (5) to document the set of factors related to satisfaction with the criminal justice system, (6) to recommend improvements in the delivery of services to victims, and (7) to identify issues for future research. Data were collected using five different survey instruments. The first survey was sent to over 3,000 violent crime victims over the age of 16 and to approximately 60 homicide witnesses and survivors in the San Diego region (Part 1, Initial Victims' Survey Data). Of the 718 victims who returned the initial survey, 330 victims were recontacted six months later (Part 2, Follow-Up Victims' Survey Data). Respondents in Part 1 were asked what type of violent crime occurred, whether they sustained injury, whether they received medical treatment, what the nature of their relationship to the suspect was, and if the suspect had been arrested. Respondents for both Parts 1 and 2 were asked which service providers, if any, contacted them at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents were also asked what type of services they needed and received at the time of the incident or afterwards. Respondents in Part 2 rated the overall service and helpfulness of the information received at the time of the incident and after, and their level of satisfaction regarding contact with the police, prosecutor, and judge handling their case. Respondents in Part 2 were also asked what sort of financial loss resulted from the incident, and whether federal, state, local, or private agencies provided financial assistance to them. Finally, respondents in Part 1 and Part 2 were asked about the physical and psychological effects of their victimization. Demographic variables for Part 1 and Part 2 include the marital status, employment status, and type of job of each violent crime victim/witness/survivor. Part 1 also includes the race, sex, and highest level of education of each respondent. Police and court case files were reviewed six months after the incident occurred for each initial sample case. Data regarding victim and incident characteristics were collected from original arrest reports, jail booking screens, and court dockets (Part 3, Tracking Data). The variables for Part 3 include the total number of victims, survivors, and witnesses of violent crimes, place of attack, evidence collected, and which service providers were at the scene of the crime. Part 3 also includes a detailed list of the services provided to the victim/witness/survivor at the scene of the crime and after. These services included counseling, explanation of medical and police procedures, self-defense and crime prevention classes, food, clothing, psychological/psychiatric services, and help with court processes. Additional Part 3 variables cover circumstances of the incident, initial custody status of suspects, involvement of victims and witnesses at hearings, and case outcome, including disposition and sentencing. The race, sex, and age of each victim/witness/survivor are also recorded in Part 3 along with the same demographics for each suspect. Data for Part 4, Intervention Programs Survey Data, were gathered using a third survey, which was distributed to members of the three following intervention programs: (1) the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, (2) the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team, and (3) the District Attorney's Victim-Witness Assistance Program. A modified version of the survey with a subset of the original questions was administered one year later to members of the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team (Part 5, Crisis Intervention Team Survey Data) and to the EYE Counseling and Crisis Services, Crisis and Advocacy Team (Part 6, EYE Crisis and Advocacy Team Survey Data). The survey questions for Parts 4-6 asked each respondent to provide their reasons for becoming involved with the program, the goals of the program, responsibilities of the staff or volunteers, the types of referral services their agency provided, the number of hours of training required, and the topics covered in the training. Respondents for Parts 4-6 were further asked about the specific types of services they provided to victims/witnesses/survivors. Part 4 also contains a series of variables regarding coordination efforts, problems, and resolutions encountered when dealing with other intervention agencies and law enforcement agencies. Demographic variables for Parts 4-6 include the ethnicity, age, gender, and highest level of education of each respondent, and whether the respondent was a staff member of the agency or volunteer. The fourth survey was mailed to 53 referral agencies used by police and crisis interventionists (Part 7, Service Provider Survey Data). Part 7 contains the same series of variables as Part 4 on dealing with other intervention and law enforcement agencies. Respondents in Part 7 were further asked to describe the type of victims/witnesses/survivors to whom they provided service (e.g., domestic violence victims, homicide witnesses, or suicide survivors) and to rate their level of satisfaction with referral procedures provided by law enforcement officers, hospitals, paramedics, religious groups, the San Diego Crisis Intervention Team, the EYE Crisis Team, and the District Attorney's Victim/Witness Program. Part 7 also includes the hours of operation for each service provider organization, as well as which California counties they serviced. Finally, respondents in Part 7 were given a list of services and asked if they provided any of those services to victims/witnesses/survivors. Services unique to this list included job placement assistance, public awareness campaigns, accompaniment to court, support groups, and advocacy with outside agencies (e.g., employers or creditors). Demographic variables for Part 7 include the ethnicity, age, and gender of each respondent. The last survey was distributed to over 1,000 law enforcement officers from the Escondido, San Diego, and Vista sheriff's agencies (Part 8, Law Enforcement Survey Data). Respondents in Part 8 were surveyed to determine their familiarity with intervention programs, how they learned about the program, the extent to which they used or referred others to intervention services, appropriate circumstances for calling or not calling in interventionists, their opinions regarding various intervention programs, their interactions with interventionists at crime scenes, and suggestions for improving delivery of services to victims. Demographic variables for Part 8 include the rank and agency of each law enforcement respondent.

Curated

Evaluation of Grants to Encourage Arrest Policies for Domestic Violence Cases in the State College, Pennsylvania, Police Department, 1999-2000 (ICPSR 3166)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Pennsylvania

This project was an 18-month long research-practitioner partnership to conduct a process evaluation of the State College Police Department's implementation of a grant to encourage arrest policies for domestic violence. The general goals of the process evaluation were to assess how and to what extent the State College Police Department's proposed activities were implemented as planned, based on the rationale that such activities would enhance the potential for increasing victim safety and perpetrator accountability systemically. As part of the grant, the police department sought to improve case tracking and services to victims by developing new specialized positions for domestic violence, including: (1) a domestic violence arrest coordinator from within the State College Police Department who was responsible for monitoring case outcomes through the courts and updating domestic violence policies and training (Part 1, Victim Tracking Data from Domestic Violence Coordinator), (2) a victims service attorney from Legal Services who was responsible for handling civil law issues for domestic violence victims, including support, child custody, employment, financial, consumer, public benefits, and housing issues (Part 2, Victim Tracking Data From Victim Services Attorney), and (3) an intensive domestic violence probation officer from the Centre County Probation and Parole Department who was responsible for providing close supervision and follow-up of batterers (Part 3, Offender Tracking Data). Researchers worked with practitioners to develop databases suitable for monitoring service provision by the three newly-created positions for domestic violence cases. Major categories of data collected on the victim tracking form (Parts 1 and 2) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided at initial contact, meetings, and referrals out. Types of services provided include reporting abuse, filing a Protection from Abuse order, legal representation, and assistance with court procedures. Major categories of data collected on the offender tracking form (Part 3) included location of initial contact, type of initial contact, referral source, reason for initial contact, service/consultation provided, charges, sentence received, relationship between the victim and perpetrator, marital status, children in the home, referrals out, presentencing investigation completed, prior criminal history, and reason for termination. Types of services provided include pre-sentence investigation, placement on supervision, and assessment and evaluation. In addition to developing these new positions, the police department also sought to improve how officers handled domestic violence cases through a two-day training program. The evaluation conducted pre- and post-training assessments of all personnel training in 1999 and conducted follow-up surveys to assess the long-term impact of training. For Part 4, Police Training Survey Data, surveys were administered to law enforcement personnel participating in a two-day domestic violence training program. Surveys were administered both before and after the training program and focused on knowledge about domestic violence policies and protocols, attitudes and beliefs about domestic violence, and the background and experience of the officers. Within six months after the training, the same participants were contacted to complete a follow-up survey. Variables in Part 4 measure how well officers knew domestic violence arrest policies, their attitudes toward abused women and how to handle domestic violence cases, and their opinions about training. Demographic variables in Part 4 include age, sex, race, education, and years in law enforcement.

Curated

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

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States, Florida

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

Curated

Evaluation of the Midtown Community Court in New York City, 1992-1994 (ICPSR 2311)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

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

Time period: 1992-01-01--1994-01-01

In October 1993, the Midtown Community Court opened as a three-year demonstration project designed to forge links with the community in developing a problem-solving approach to quality-of-life offenses. The problems that this community-based courthouse sought to address were specific to the court's midtown New York City location: high concentration of quality-of-life crimes, broad community dissatisfaction with court outcomes, visible signs of disorder, and clusters of persistent high-rate offenders with serious problems, including addiction and homelessness. This study was conducted to evaluate how well the new court was able to dispense justice locally and whether the establishment of the Midtown Community Court made a difference in misdemeanor case processing. Data were collected at two time periods for a comparative analysis. First, a baseline dataset (Part 1, Baseline Data) was constructed from administrative records, consisting of a ten-percent random sample of all nonfelony arraignments in Manhattan during the 12 months prior to the opening of the Midtown Community Court. Second, comparable administrative data (Part 2, Comparison Data) were collected from all cases arraigned at the Midtown Court during its first 12 months of operation, as well as from a random sample of all downtown nonfelony arraignments held during this same time period. Both files contain variables on precinct of arrest, arraignment type, charges, bonds, dispositions, sentences, total number of court appearances, and total number of warrants issued, as well as prior felony and misdemeanor convictions. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of offender.

Curated

Partially restricted

Evaluation of Victim Advocacy Services Funded by the Violence Against Women Act in Urban Ohio, 1999 (ICPSR 2992)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States, Ohio

The focus of this research and evaluation endeavor was on direct service programs in Ohio, particularly advocacy services for female victims of violence, receiving funding through the Services, Training, Officers, Prosecutors (STOP) formula grants under the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) of 1994. The objectives of this project were (1) to describe and compare existing advocacy services in Ohio, (2) to compare victim advocacy typologies and identify key variables in the delivery of services, (3) to develop a better understanding of how victim advocacy services are defined and delivered, and (4) to assess the effectiveness of those services. For Part 1, Service Agencies Data, comprehensive information about 13 VAWA-funded programs providing direct services in urban Ohio was gathered through a mailback questionnaire and phone interviews. Detailed information was collected on organizational structure, clients served, and agency services. Focus groups were also used to collect data from clients (Parts 3-11) and staff (Parts 12-23) about their definitions of advocacy, types of services needed by victims, services provided to victims, and important outcomes for service providers. Part 2, Police Officer Data, focused on police officers' attitudes toward domestic violence and on evaluating service outcomes in one particular agency. The agency selected was a prosecutor's office that planned to improve services to victims by changing how the police and prosecutors responded to domestic violence cases. The prosecutor's office selected one police district as the site for implementing the new program, which included training police officers and placing a prosecutor in the district office to work directly with the police on domestic violence cases. The evaluation of this program was designed to assess the effectiveness of the police officers' training and officers' increased access to information from the prosecutor on the outcome of the case. Police officers from the selected district were administered surveys. Also surveyed were officers from another district that handled a similar number of domestic violence cases and had a comparable number of officers employed in the district. Variables in Part 1 include number of staff, budget, funding sources, number and type of victims served, target population, number of victims served speaking languages other than English, number of juveniles and adults served, number of victims with special needs served, collaboration with other organizations, benefits of VAWA funding, and direct and referral services provided by the agency. Variables in Part 2 cover police officers' views on whether it was a waste of time to prosecute domestic violence cases, if these cases were likely to result in a conviction, whether they felt sympathetic toward the victim or blamed the victim, how the prosecution should proceed with domestic violence cases, how the prosecution and police worked together on such cases, whether domestic violence was a private matter, and how they felt about the new program implemented under VAWA.

Curated

Simple Crosstabs

Evidence, Sexual Assaults, and Case Outcomes: Understanding the Role of Sexual Assault Kits, Non-Forensic Evidence, and Case Characteristics, 2015-2017 (ICPSR 37261)

Released/updated on: 2020-03-31

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 2015-01-01--2017-01-01

This project examined the role of sexual assault medical forensic exams (sexual assault kits) and other case characteristics in achieving investigative and prosecutorial outcomes in sexual assault cases. The study team conducted comprehensive reviews of over 500 sexual assault cases based on reports to police to identify evidence and case characteristics as they progress through case processing. Using statistical models, the study team predicted case outcomes using a variety of case, suspect, and victim characteristics, with a focus on the role of sexual assault exams and kits. Additionally, the study team interviewed key stakeholders in each site to supplement the case-level information, including law enforcement, prosecutors, representatives from victim service agencies, and sexual assault nurse examiners.

Curated

Expanded United States Supreme Court Judicial Database, 1946-1968 Terms (ICPSR 6557)

Released/updated on: 2005-11-04

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1946-01-01--1968-01-01

This data collection is an expanded version of UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUDICIAL DATABASE, 1953-1996 TERMS (ICPSR 9422), encompassing all aspects of United States Supreme Court decision-making from the beginning of the Vinson Court in 1946 to the end of the Warren Court in 1968. Two major differences distinguish the expanded version of the database from the original collection: the addition of data on the decisions of the Vinson Court, and the inclusion of the conference votes of the Vinson and Warren courts. Whereas the original collection contained only the vote as reported in the UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT REPORTS, the expanded database includes all votes cast in conference. Concomitant with the expansion of the database is a shift in its basic unit of analysis. The original collection contained every case in which at least one justice wrote an opinion, and cases without opinions were excluded. This version includes every case in which the Court cast a conference vote, with and without opinions. The justices cast many more votes than they wrote opinions, and hence, the number of Warren Court records in this version increased by more than a factor of two over the original version. As in the original collection, distinct aspects of the Court's decisions are covered by six types of variables: (1) identification variables including case citation, docket number, unit of analysis, and number of records per unit of analysis, (2) background variables offering information on origin of case, source of case, reason for granting cert, parties to the case, direction of the lower court's decision, and manner in which the Court takes jurisdiction, (3) chronological variables covering date of term of court, chief justice, and natural court, (4) substantive variables including multiple legal provisions, authority for decision, issue, issue areas, and direction of decision, (5) outcome variables supplying information on form of decision, disposition of case, winning party, declaration of unconstitutionality, and multiple memorandum decisions, and (6) voting and opinion variables pertaining to the vote in the case and to the direction of the individual justices' votes.

Curated

Factors Related to Domestic Violence Court Dispositions in a Large Midwestern Urban Area, 1997-1998: [United States] (ICPSR 3010)

Released/updated on: 2006-03-30

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1997-01-01--1998-01-01

The goal of this study was to identify factors that influence whether city misdemeanor domestic violence cases in which batterers are arrested by police result in dismissals, acquittals, or convictions in the courts, and how these cases are processed. The researchers sought to examine factors that influence court officials' decision-making in domestic violence cases, as well as factors that influence victim and witness reluctance in bringing batterers to successful adjudication. In Part 1 researchers merged pretrial services data with information from police and prosecutors' reports in the urban area under study to answer the following questions: (1) What is the rate of dismissals, acquittals, and convictions for misdemeanor court cases and what are the conditions of these sentences? (2) What factors in court cases are significantly related to whether the disposition is a dismissal, acquittal, or conviction, and how are these cases processed? In Part 2, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders were asked detailed questions about their level of knowledge about, attitudes toward, and self-reported behaviors regarding the processing of domestic violence cases to find out: (1) What roles do legal and extra-legal factors play in decision-makers' self-reported behaviors and attitudes? (2) How do decision-makers rate victim advocate and batterer treatment programs? (3) How do court professionals view the victim's role in the court process? and (4) To what degree do court professionals report victim-blaming attitudes and experiences? For Part 3 researchers used a stratified random sample to select court cases of misdemeanor domestic violence that would be transcribed and used for a content analysis to examine: (1) Who speaks in court and how? and (2) What is considered relevant by different court players? In Parts 4-103 victim surveys and interviews were administered to learn about battered women's experiences in both their personal lives and the criminal processing system. Researchers sought to answer the following questions: (1) How do victim/witnesses perceive their role in the prosecution of their abusers? (2) What factors inhibit them from pursuing prosecution? (3) What factors might help them pursue prosecution? and (4) How consistent are the victims'/witnesses' demographic and psychological profiles with existing research in this area? Domestic violence victims attending arraignment between January 1 and December 31 of 1997 were asked to complete surveys to identify their concerns about testifying against their partners and to evaluate the effectiveness of the court system in dealing with domestic violence cases (Part 4). The disposition of each case was subsequently determined by a research team member's examination of defendants' case files and/or court computer files. Upon case closure victims who had both completed a survey and indicated a willingness to be interviewed were contacted to participate in an interview (Parts 5-103). Variables in Part 1, Pretrial Services Data, include prior criminal history, current charges, case disposition, sentence, victim testimony, police testimony, victim's demeanor at trial, judge's conduct, type of abuse involved, weapons used, injuries sustained, and type of evidence available for trial. Demographic variables include age, sex, and race of defendants, victims, prosecutors, and judges. In Part 2, Professional Survey Data, respondents were asked about their tolerance for victims and offenders who appeared in court more than once, actions taken when substance abuse was involved, the importance of injuries in making a decision, attitudes toward battered women, the role of victim advocates and the police, views on restraining orders, and opinion on whether arrest is a deterrent. Demographic variables include age, sex, race, marital status, and years of professional experience. Variables in Part 3, Court Transcript Data, include number and type of charges, pleas, reasons for dismissals, types of evidence submitted by prosecutors and defense, substance abuse by victim and defendant, living arrangements and number of children of victim and defendant, specific type of abuse, injuries sustained, witnesses to injuries, police testimony, verdict, and sentence. Demographic variables include age and sex of defendant and victim and relationship of victim and defendant. In Part 4, Victim Survey Data, victims were asked about their relationship and living arrangements with the defendant, concerns about testifying in court, desired outcomes of case and punishment for defendant, emotional issues related to abuse, health problems, substance abuse, support networks, other violent domestic incidents and injuries, and safety concerns. Part 5 variables measured victims' safety at different stages of the criminal justice process and danger experienced due to further violent incidents, presence of weapons, and threats of homicide or suicide. Parts 6-103 contain the qualitative interview data.

Curated

Federal Court Cases, 1962-1964 (ICPSR 7245)

Released/updated on: 2022-09-12

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1962-01-01--1964-01-01

This study collected data from both civil and criminal federal cases tried in the fiscal years 1962-1963 and 1963-1964. Procedural, jurisdictional, and other legal information is provided, including the disposition of each case.

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 1970-2000 (ICPSR 8429)

Released/updated on: 2012-05-22

Geographic coverage: United States

Time period: 1970-01-01--2000-01-01

The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from 94 district and 12 appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of a case: filing and termination. The termination data contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data contain only filing information. For the appellate and civil data, the unit of analysis is a single case. The unit of analysis for the criminal data is a single defendant.

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2001 (ICPSR 3415)

Released/updated on: 2015-09-24

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2002 (ICPSR 4059)

Released/updated on: 2015-09-18

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2003 (ICPSR 4026)

Released/updated on: 2015-09-15

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2004 (ICPSR 4348)

Released/updated on: 2015-09-11

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2005 (ICPSR 4382)

Released/updated on: 2015-09-01

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2006 (ICPSR 4685)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-26

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Database, 2007 (ICPSR 22300)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-25

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2008 (ICPSR 25002)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-24

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2009 (ICPSR 29661)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-21

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2010 (ICPSR 30401)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-20

Geographic coverage: United States

The purpose of this data collection is to provide an official public record of the business of the federal courts. The data originate from district and appellate court offices throughout the United States. Information was obtained at two points in the life of appellate and civil cases: filing and termination. The termination data (archived in this data collection) contain information on both filing and terminations, while the pending data (archived as a separate data collection) contain only filing information on the most recent pending cases. The unit of analysis for the appellate and civil terminations data is the case. This collection also contains data on criminal cases in federal courts. However, the unit of analysis for the criminal data is the defendant, and a defendant can be included in several cases.

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2011 (ICPSR 33622)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2012 (ICPSR 34881)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-20

Geographic coverage: United States

Curated

Federal Court Cases: Integrated Data Base, 2013 (ICPSR 35603)

Released/updated on: 2015-08-20

Geographic coverage: United States