Showing 1 – 12 of 12 results.
Curated
Partially restricted
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
Partially restricted
Case Processing in the New York County District Attorney's Office, New York City, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 34681)
Released/updated on: 2020-09-22
Geographic coverage: New York City, New York County, New York (state), Manhattan (New York City)
Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-01-01, 2012-08-13--2012-08-22
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.
This project sought to study the District Attorney of New York's (DANY) current practices by addressing the complex relationship between prosecutorial decision making and racial and ethnic justice in felony and misdemeanor cases closed in New York County in 2010-2011. Using a mixed-methods approach, administrative records from the DANY case-management systems and prosecutorial interviews were examined to study case acceptance for prosecution, pretrial detention and bail determination, case dismissal, plea offers, and sentencing. Researchers developed five hypotheses for the data collected:
- Blacks and Latinos are more likely to have their cases accepted for prosecution than similarly situated white defendants.
- Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be held in pretrial detention and less likely to be released on bail.
- Blacks and Latinos are less likely to have cases dismissed.
- Blacks and Latinos are less likely to receive a plea offer to a lesser charge and more likely to receive custodial sentence offers.
- Blacks and Latinos are more likely to be sentenced to custodial punishments.
All criminal activity of the defendant was examined, as well as their demographics and prior history, the location of the crime. Information on the Assistant District Attorney (ADA) was examined as well, including their demographics and caseload in order to more thoroughly understand the catalysts and trends in decision making.
Curated
Partially restricted
How Justice Systems Realign in California: The Policies and Systemic Effects of Prison Downsizing, 1978-2013 (ICPSR 34939)
Released/updated on: 2017-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 1978-01-01--2012-01-01, 2013-03-01--2013-07-01, 2012-01-01--2013-01-01
These data are part of NACJD's Fast Track Release and are distributed as they there received from the data depositor. The files have been zipped by NACJD for release, but not checked or processed except of the removal of direct identifiers. Users should refer to the accompany readme file for a brief description of the files available with this collections and consult the investigator(s) if further information is needed.
The California correctional system underwent a dramatic transformation under California's Public Safety Realignment Act (AB 109) in 2011, a law that shifted from the state to the counties the responsibility for monitoring, tracking, and incarcerating lower level offenders previously bound for state prison. Realignment, therefore, presents the opportunity to witness 58 natural experiments in the downsizing of prisons. Counties faced different types of offenders, implemented different programs in different community and jail environments, and adopted differing sanctioning policies. This study examines the California's Public Safety Realignment Act's effect on counties' criminal justice institutions, including the disparities that result in charging, sentencing, and resource decisions.
Curated
Line Police Officer Knowledge of Search and Seizure Law: An Exploratory Multi-city Test in the United States, 1986-1987 (ICPSR 9981)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1986-01-01--1987-01-01
This data collection was undertaken to gather information on the extent of police officers' knowledge of search and seizure law, an issue with important consequences for law enforcement. A specially-produced videotape depicting line duty situations that uniformed police officers frequently encounter was viewed by 478 line uniformed police officers from 52 randomly-selected cities in which search and seizure laws were determined to be no more restrictive than applicable United States Supreme Court decisions. Testing of the police officers occurred in all regions as established by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, except for the Pacific region (California, Oregon, and Washington), since search and seizure laws in these states are, in some instances, more restrictive than United States Supreme Court decisions. No testing occurred in cities with populations under 10,000 because of budget limitations. Fourteen questions to which the officers responded were presented in the videotape. Each police officer also completed a questionnaire that included questions on demographics, training, and work experience, covering their age, sex, race, shift worked, years of police experience, education, training on search and seizure law, effectiveness of various types of training instructors and methods, how easily they could obtain advice about search and seizure questions they encountered, and court outcomes of search and seizure cases in which they were involved. Police department representatives completed a separate questionnaire providing department characteristics and information on search and seizure training and procedures, such as the number of sworn officers, existence of general training and the number of hours required, existence of in-service search and seizure training and the number of hours and testing required, existence of policies and procedures on search and seizure, and means of advice available to officers about search and seizure questions. These data comprise Part 1. For purposes of comparison and interpretation of the police officer test scores, question responses were also obtained from other sources. Part 2 contains responses from 36 judges from states with search and seizure laws no more restrictive than the United States Supreme Court decisions, as well as responses from a demographic and work-experience questionnaire inquiring about their age, law school attendance, general judicial experience, and judicial experience and education specific to search and seizure laws. All geographic regions except New England and the Pacific were represented by the judges. Part 3, Comparison Data, contains answers to the 14 test questions only, from 15 elected district attorneys, 6 assistant district attorneys, the district attorney in another city and 11 of his assistant district attorneys, a police attorney with expertise in search and seizure law, 24 police academy trainees with no previous police work experience who were tested before search and seizure law training, a second group of 17 police academy trainees -- some with police work experience but no search and seizure law training, 55 law enforcement officer trainees from a third academy tested immediately after search and seizure training, 7 technical college students with no previous education or training on search and seizure law, and 27 university criminal justice course students, also with no search and seizure law education or training.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1990 (ICPSR 9579)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1988-01-01--1990-01-01
This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1989-1990. Questions regarding the prefiling, filing, and pretrial stages of felony prosecution asked about policies limiting the time for plea negotiations, the role of the grand jury, how felony cases were screened, and the amount of time that usually elapsed before the prosecutor was notified of persons arrested for a felony. Prosecutors were also asked to report the percentage of court case filings by grand jury indictment, by information following a preliminary hearing, or by other means, and the percentage of felony cases processed by a court of general jurisdiction, a felony court, or other court(s). The trial stage of felony prosecution was covered by questions about the conduct of voir dire examination of prospective jurors, limits on time allowed to commence trial, the number of permitted peremptory challenges, who was responsible for notifying government witnesses to appear in court, whether the prosecution had the right to request a jury trial, whether the jurisdiction's felony court discouraged motions on trial date that would delay trial, and whether the felony court normally granted a continuance on trial date to permit additional time for plea negotiations. Questions on felony sentencing and appeals asked whether the prosecutor was usually present at felony sentence proceedings, whether the judge usually ordered a presentence report, whether victim information was requested or provided by the court, whether the prosecutor normally recommended a type or duration of sentence to be imposed, whether police, victims, or witnesses were notified of the disposition of felony cases, whether the prosecutor was involved in various types of appellate work, and whether the prosecutor had any right of appeal from rulings on motions, from sentences, and from determination of guilt or innocence. General information gathered by the survey includes the number of jurisdictions contained in the prosecutorial district, the number of attorneys and investigators employed in the sampled jurisdiction and in the prosecutorial district as a whole, the length of the prosecutor's term of office, the number of law enforcement agencies that brought arrests into the jurisdiction's court, how much of the prosecutor's felony caseload was assigned on a vertical basis, the kinds of nonfelony matters the prosecutor had responsibility for or jurisdiction over (e.g., family and domestic relations, mental commitments, environmental protection, traffic, etc.), whether the office of prosecutor was an elective position, and whether it was a full- or part-time position. Other general items include whether any felony defendants were provided an attorney on the grounds of indigency, whether, in criminal cases involving both state and federal jurisdiction, the prosecutor would ordinarily be cross-designated to represent the prosecutor in both courts, whether the prosecutor's office contained a "career criminal" unit, whether the state's attorney general was entitled to try cases in the jurisdiction's felony court, which types of criminal history data normally were of practical value in felony prosecution, and who supervised the probationer in most cases of adult felons sentenced to probation.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1992 (ICPSR 6273)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1991-07-01--1992-06-30
This survey queried chief prosecuting attorneys of state prosecutorial districts (district attorneys, commonwealth attorneys, etc.) about the prosecution of felony cases within their jurisdictions during 1991 and 1992. Some items included in an earlier survey, NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1990 (ICPSR 9579), were repeated, covering topics such as new methods of prosecution, new kinds of evidence, use of criminal history data, general workload statistics, funding, plea negotiations, sentencing of intermediate sanctions, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, criminal defense of indigents, and the use of lower courts and grand juries. New areas of concern in 1992 included staffing, turnover, recruitment, new kinds of felonies, problem cases, scientific evidence, computerization, staff training, drug testing, and the personal risks associated with the role of prosecutor. Demographic data include sex, race, and ethnic composition of current staff members.
Curated
Partially restricted
National Prosecutors Survey, 1994 (ICPSR 6785)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1994-01-01--1994-12-31
The National Survey of Prosecutors is a biennial survey of chief prosecutors in state court systems. A chief prosecutor is an official, usually locally elected and typically with the title of district attorney or county attorney, who is in charge of a prosecutorial district made up of one or more counties, and who conducts or supervises the prosecution of felony cases in a state court system. Prosecutors in courts of limited jurisdiction, such as municipal prosecutors, were not included in the survey. The survey's purpose was to obtain detailed descriptive information on prosecutors' offices, as well as information on their policies and practices. The data collection instrument was based on questions that were included in the NATIONAL PROSECUTORS SURVEY, 1992 (ICPSR 6273), and also added queries on topics of current concern, including: cross-designation of state prosecutors to try cases in federal court, juvenile transfers to criminal court, personal liability insurance for prosecutors, and involvement with community-based drug abuse programs. Variables include whether certain categories of felony prosecution, such as gangs, hate crimes, domestic violence, stalking, fraud, or child abuse or abduction were handled, whether DNA evidence, videotape, expert or child witnesses, polygraph tests, or wiretap evidence were used in trials, types of intermediate sanctions used, including house arrest, electronic monitoring, work release, substance abuse rehabilitation or therapy, community service, and fines or restitution, information on problem cases, personal risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, civil actions against prosecutors, criminal defense of indigent offenders, staffing, workload, funding, whether the defendant's criminal history was used in trials, juvenile matters, relationships with victims and other persons aiding prosecution, computerization, and community leadership. The unit of analysis is the district office.
Curated
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
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, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and also added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
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
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, 1994 (ICPSR 6785), and added queries on topics of current concern. Variables cover staffing, workload, funding, what type of computer access the office had, whether the office was part of an integrated computerized system with other specific criminal agencies, the use of DNA evidence in plea negotiations of felony trials, which laboratories performed these DNA analyses, juvenile matters, and risks associated with the role of the prosecutor, such as threatening letters or calls, face-to-face assaults, or batter/assaults. The unit of analysis is the district office.
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
Operation Hardcore [Crime] Evaluation: Los Angeles, 1976-1980 (ICPSR 9038)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-12
Geographic coverage: United States, Los Angeles, California
Time period: 1976-01-01--1980-01-01
This evaluation was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office to examine the effectiveness of specialized prosecutorial activities in dealing with the local problem of rising gang violence, in particular the special gang prosecution unit Operation Hardcore. One part of the evaluation was a system performance analysis. The purposes of this system performance analysis were (1) to describe the problems of gang violence in Los Angeles and the ways that incidents of gang violence were handled by the Los Angeles criminal justice system, and (2) to document the activities of Operation Hardcore and its effect on the criminal justice system's handling of the cases prosecuted by that unit. Computer-generated listings from the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office of all individuals referred for prosecution by local police agencies were used to identify those individuals who were subsequently prosecuted by the District Attorney. Data from working files on all cases prosecuted, including copies of police, court, and criminal history records as well as information on case prosecution, were used to describe criminal justice handling. Information from several supplementary sources was also included, such as the automated Prosecutors Management Information System (PROMIS) maintained by the District Attorney's Office, and court records from the Superior Court of California in Los Angeles County, the local felony court.