Showing 1 – 13 of 13 results.
Curated
American Bar Foundation: State Criminal Court Cases, 1962 (ICPSR 7272)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Time period: 1962-01-01--1962-12-31
This study presents data about criminal court cases in the 50 states and District of Columbia in 1962. Variables include state and county of trial, case processing, offense charged, sentence, type of counsel, amount of bail, length of time in jail, and other aspects related to the disposition of the cases. Demographic information on the defendant is provided, such as age group, sex, race, and years of school completed.
Curated
Census of Public Defender Offices: State Programs, 2007 (ICPSR 29501)
Released/updated on: 2011-05-13
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2007-01-01--2007-12-31
The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) collected data from public defender offices located across 49 states and the District of Columbia. Public defender offices are one of three methods through which states and localities ensure that indigent defendants are granted the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment right to counsel. (In addition to defender offices, indigent defense services may also be provided by court-assigned private counsel or by a contract system in which private attorneys contractually agree to take on a specified number of indigent defendants or indigent defense cases.) Public defender offices have a salaried staff of full- or part-time attorneys who represent indigent defendants and are employed as direct government employees or through a public, nonprofit organization. Public defenders play an important role in the United States criminal justice system. Data from prior BJS surveys on indigent defense representation indicate that most criminal defendants rely on some form of publicly provided defense counsel, primarily public defenders. Although the United States Supreme Court has mandated that the states provide counsel for indigent persons accused of crime, documentation on the nature and provision of these services has not been readily available. States have devised various systems, rules of organization, and funding mechanisms for indigent defense programs. While the operation and funding of public defender offices varies across states, public defender offices can be generally classified as being part of either a state program or a county-based system. The 22 state public defender programs functioned entirely under the direction of a central administrative office that funded and administered all the public defender offices in the state. For the 28 states with county-based offices, indigent defense services were administered at the county or local jurisdictional level and funded principally by the county or through a combination of county and state funds. The CPDO collected data from both state- and county-based offices. All public defender offices that were principally funded by state or local governments and provided general criminal defense services, conflict services, or capital case representation were within the scope of the study. Federal public defender offices and offices that provided primarily contract or assigned counsel services with private attorneys were excluded from the data collection. In addition, public defender offices that were principally funded by a tribal government, or provided primarily appellate or juvenile services were outside the scope of the project and were also excluded. The CPDO gathered information on public defender office staffing, expenditures, attorney training, standards and guidelines, and caseloads, including the number and type of cases received by the offices. The data collected by the CPDO can be compared to and analyzed against many of the existing national standards for the provision of indigent defense services.
Curated
Comparing Court Case Processing in Nine Courts, 1979-1980 (ICPSR 8621)
Released/updated on: 1992-02-16
Geographic coverage: United States, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1979-01-01--1980-12-31
This study looks at the characteristics of officials who are involved in court case processing. Data were collected on the cases and defendants, the officials involved in the cases, personality characteristics of the officials and the perceptions that these officials have of each other.
Curated
Restricted
Effects of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 1995-2004 [United States] (ICPSR 32541)
Released/updated on: 2012-09-21
Geographic coverage: United States, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Time period: 1994-01-01--2005-12-31
This study measured the difference that defense counsel made to the outcome of homicide and death penalty cases. One in five indigent murder defendants in Philadelphia were randomly assigned representation by the Defender Association of Philadelphia while the remainder received court-appointed private attorneys. This study's research design utilized this random assignment to measure how defense counsel affected murder case outcomes. The research team collected data on 3,157 defendants charged with murder in Philadelphia Municipal Court between 1995-2004, using records provided by the Philadelphia Courts (First Judicial District of Pennsylvania). Data were also obtained from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, the Pennsylvania Unified Judicial System web portal, the National Corrections Reporting Program, and the 2000 Census. This study contains a total of 47 variables including public defender representation, defendant demographics, ZIP code characteristics, prior criminal history, case characteristics, case outcomes, and case handling procedures.
Curated
Partially restricted
Influence of Eyewitness Memory Factors on Plea Bargaining Decisions by Prosecution and Defense Attorneys in California, 2010-2011 (ICPSR 32181)
Released/updated on: 2012-07-31
Geographic coverage: United States, California
Time period: 2010-01-01--2011-12-31
The purpose of the study was to assess how the strength of eyewitness evidence affects plea bargaining decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Surveys were administered to 93 defense attorneys and 46 prosecutors from matched counties in California. On the questionnaire, each participant was asked four background questions and read four versions of a crime scenario in which two specific eyewitness factors -- (a) same- versus cross-race identification and (b) prior contact or not -- were experimentally manipulated in a factorial design. The scenarios described a store robbery in which identification by one eyewitness was the only evidence against the defendant. After reading each scenario, attorneys were asked to respond to five questions in light of the facts presented. The study contains 28 variables including background data on the study participants and responses to questions relating to four crime scenarios that differ in terms of the details of the eyewitness evidence.
Curated
Legal Representation Data, 1970 (ICPSR 7540)
Released/updated on: 2009-11-19
Time period: 1970-01-01--1970-12-31
This data collection contains legal representation information gathered in a 1970 survey of 474 attorneys across the United States, which garnered 221 usable responses. The research objectives included: (1) determining the relationship between the behavior of the attorneys in representing indigent or unpopular clients and the attitudes, specialties, backgrounds, and environments of the attorneys, (2) arriving at some policy recommendations for increasing the representation of indigent and unpopular clients, and (3) analyzing the joint causation phenomenon whereby neither favorable attitudes nor favorable opportunities alone lead to representation of the unpopular, but the combination of both together does so substantially. Survey information gathered includes respondents' attitudes toward: (1) the legal profession, (2) unpopular or indigent clients, (3) sociopolitical issues regarding the poor, and (4) the system of legal representation. Respondents were asked for their experiences when representing unpopular or indigent clients and to give reasons they might not choose to represent such clients. Background information includes characteristics of the respondent's community as well as respondent's race, gender, natality, father's occupation, political party affiliation, political offices held, religious preference, type of practice, and percent of clients from ethnic and racial minorities.
Curated
Legal Service Agencies, 1970 (ICPSR 7369)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1970-01-01--1970-12-31
These data, focusing on the effectiveness of legal service programs, were collected by the Office of Legal Services under the Office of Economic Opportunity. The data include information about each agency, its budget, and the characteristics of its clients and personnel. Evaluations of the agency's effectiveness and operation were made by a visiting observer based on consultations with staff and community members. Evaluative measures include community attitudes, agency resources, and staff competence.
Curated
Restricted
National Evaluation of the Domestic Violence Victims' Civil Legal Assistance (CLA) Program, 1997-2003 [United States] (ICPSR 20355)
Released/updated on: 2010-04-05
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1997-01-01--2003-12-31
The national evaluation of the Legal Assistance for Victims (LAV) program had three main objectives: (1) to document the range of local activities and programs supported by the Fiscal Year 1998 to Fiscal Year 2000 LAV grants, (2) to conduct a process evaluation by examining and documenting LAV grantee planning and implementation efforts, and (3) to evaluate the effectiveness of LAV programs in meeting the needs of the victims they serve. A mixed method approach was developed to conduct the evaluation. The researchers used a classic triangulation framework of quantitative agency data, telephone survey interviews, mail surveys, interviews and focus groups with service providers, and case studies. The evaluation of effectiveness included (1) before-after analysis of caseload data on 88,901 clients and (2) interviews with 124 LAV clients. The range of local activities and programs was documented primarily through two mail surveys of grantees. For Part 1 (2001 Mail Survey), data include information regarding project staffing, partnerships, legal and advocacy services provided, and implementation challenges. It was completed by 156 grantees. Part 2 (2003 Mail Survey) was administered to the 2001 survey respondents who had also received continuation grants in 2001 or 2002. It was completed by 79 grantees. This survey sought information on successful practices for achieving key project objectives. It also attempted to quantify the number and types of legal services provided and gain more quantitative information on unmet needs. Part 3 (Legal Assistance for Victims Data) contains caseload data including demographics related to clients such as gender, ethnicity, and income. It also contains information regarding the case including type of case, hours worked on the case, and results of the case. There are also data related to the agency such as jurisdiction of the agency and type of agency. For Part 4 (Victims Interviews), data include demographic information, history and background of the case, legal services received, satisfaction with legal services, impact of legal services, and the victim's current situation.
Curated
National Indigent Criminal Defense Survey, 1982 (ICPSR 8417)
Released/updated on: 2006-03-30
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1982-01-01--1982-12-31
This survey was conducted to provide national-level data on basic information such as system types, funding sources, costs, and caseloads of indigent defense programs for defense practitioners, policymakers, and planners in the criminal justice system. The goal of the survey was to provide data that could begin to answer questions regarding the nature and scope of indigent service delivery. Specifically, the three basic objectives were to provide descriptive data, to assess the level of response to defense service delivery requirements, and to facilitate further research.
Curated
National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS), 1999 (ICPSR 3081)
Released/updated on: 2006-01-18
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1999-01-01--2000-12-31
This survey collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the study was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services.
Curated
Simple Crosstabs
National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) State-Administered Data, 2013 (ICPSR 36831)
Released/updated on: 2017-10-02
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 2012-01-01--2013-12-31
The National Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (NSIDS) collected nationwide data in order to: (1) identify the number and characteristics of publicly financed indigent defense systems and agencies in the United States, (2) measure how legal services were provided to indigent criminal defendants in terms of caseloads, workloads, policies, and practices, and (3) describe the types of offenses handled by indigent defense system organizations. The study was initially designed to permit measurable statistical estimates at the national level for each region of the United States, for individual states, and for the 100 most populous counties, including the District of Columbia. However, due to resource and financial constraints, the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems (ICPSR 3081) was scaled back to collect indigent criminal defense data at the trial level for (1) the 100 most populous counties, (2) 197 counties outside the 100 most populous counties, and (3) states that entirely funded indigent criminal defense services.
The 2013 NSIDS was the first census of all state- and county-administered indigent defense systems. It was also the first collection of data focusing on criminal defense and civil, juvenile, and appellate representation. The NSIDS furthers the work of the 2007 Census of Public Defender Offices (CPDO) and the 1999 Survey of Indigent Defense Systems.
Curated
Public Attitudes Toward Lawyers and Legal Disputes, 1993: [United States] (ICPSR 6403)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: United States
Time period: 1993-01-01--1993-12-31
This data collection examines public attitudes, opinions, and experiences with respect to lawyers and legal disputes and the effects that prior experiences have on the future likelihood of using the law to settle disputes. Variables refer to types and outcomes of legal disputes, selection of lawyers, gender and age of lawyers, number of contacts, size of legal firms, the extent of services the lawyers provided to clients, and the behavior of lawyers. The unit of analysis is the individual.
Curated
Survey of Lawyers in the Metropolitan New York Media Market, 1989 (ICPSR 9823)
Released/updated on: 2005-11-04
Geographic coverage: New York City, United States, New York (state)
Time period: 1989-01-01--1989-12-31
The purpose of this data collection was twofold. The survey was designed to ascertain the attitudes of attorneys regarding new techniques for obtaining clients, such as media advertising and solicitation, as well as their attitudes toward pro bono service, and to test whether attitudinal differences are related to demographic or organizational characteristics of the profession. A second purpose of the study was to serve as a screener to identify a group of attorneys in solo and small-firm practice who use new types of business-getting techniques. Variables in the collection include respondent attitudes toward advertising, unions, and pro bono cases, information on type of firm, number of attorneys in the firm, type of legal practice and legal specialty, and demographic information such as religious affiliation, membership in local clubs or associations, college attended, marital status, number of children, income, number of years practicing law, and parents' occupations.