Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Plea decision-making by attorneys and judges

  • Published:
Journal of Experimental Criminology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives

Approximately 95 % of convictions in the United States are the result of guilty pleas. Surprisingly little is known about the factors which judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys consider in these decisions. To examine the legal and extralegal factors that legal actors consider in plea decision-making, we replicated and improved upon a 40-year-old study by asking legal actor participants to review a variety of case factors, and then make plea decisions and estimate sentences for pleas and trials (upon conviction).

Methods

Over 1,500 defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges completed an online survey involving a hypothetical legal case in which the presence of three types of evidence and length of defendant criminal history were experimentally manipulated.

Results

The manipulated evidence impacted plea decisions and discounts, whereas criminal history only affected plea discounts (i.e., the difference between plea and trial sentences). Defense attorneys considered the largest number of factors (evidentiary and non-evidentiary), and although legal actor role influenced the decision to plead, it did not affect the discount.

Conclusions

In replicating a landmark study, via technological advances not available in the 1970s, we were able to increase our sample size nearly six-fold, obtain a sample representing all 50 states, and include judges. However, our sample was nonrepresentative and the hypothetical scenario may or may not generalize to actual situations. Nonetheless, valuable information was gained about the factors considered and weighed by legal actors.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. We note here that other ‘shadow’ models have been put forth, such as Standen’s (1993) “shadow of the guidelines” and Lacasse and Payne (1999)’s “shadow of the judge.” Nonetheless, these models share the same basic underlying premise that decision-making is made on the expectations of trial/sentencing outcomes.

  2. The average amount of time spent on the survey for all completers was 21.94 min. The amount of time spent did not differ significantly across roles (p = .51).

  3. There were four manipulation-check questions, each asking the participant whether each type of manipulated evidence was present or absent. Respondents were given the options of “Yes,” “No,” and “I don’t know.” An answer was considered correct if the participant (1) was in a condition in which the evidence was present and answered “Yes,” (2) was in a condition in which the evidence was not present and answered “No,” or (3) did not choose to view the folder for that particular type of evidence and answered, “I don’t know.”

  4. In the defendant’s prior record, long condition, participants read that the defendant had: (1) Three juvenile contacts, one at age 14 for assault, two at age 16, both for unlawful entry; disposition unknown, (2) Arrest for burglary, age 18; convicted, 1 year of probation; (3) Arrest for robbery, age 19; convicted, 2 years; (4) Arrest for attempted rape, age 21; dismissed; and (5) Arrest for robbery, age 24, convicted, 3 years. In the defendant’s prior record, short condition, participants read that the defendant had: (1) one juvenile contact at age 14 for malicious mischief, disposition unknown, and (2) one arrest at age 18 for disorderly conduct, dismissed. These were the same as used in Miller et al. (1978).

References

  • Albonetti, C. A. (1990). Race and the probability of pleading guilty. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6, 315–334. doi:10.1007/BF01065413.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alschuler, A. (1968). The prosecutor’s role in plea bargaining. University of Chicago Law Review, 36, 50–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Bar Association. (2012). Lawyer demographics. Retrieved from: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/marketresearch/PublicDocuments/lawyer_demographics_2012_revised.authcheckdam.pdf.

  • Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2463–2547.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2013). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 2009. Retrieved from http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fdluc09.pdf, on April 15, 2016.

  • Bushway, S. D., & Redlich, A. D. (2012). Is plea bargaining in the “shadow of trial” a mirage? Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 28, 437–454. doi:10.1007/s10940-011-9147-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bushway, S. D., Redlich, A. D., & Norris, R. J. (2014). An explicit test of plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial”. Criminology, 52, 723–754.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., Clayton, L. D., Dunford, B. D., Seying, R., & Pryce, J. (2001). Jury decision-making: 45 years of empirical research. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 7, 622–727. doi:10.1037//1076-8971.7.3.622.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devine, D. J., Buddenbaum, J., Houp, S., Studebaker, N., & Stolle, D. P. (2009). Strength of the evidence, extraevidentiary influence, and the liberation hypothesis: data from the field. Law and Human Behavior, 33, 136–148. doi:10.1007/s10979-008-9144-x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbeson, E. B., & Konecni, V. J. (1975). Decision making and information integration in the courts: the setting of bail. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, 805–811.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edelman, L. B., Leachman, G., & McAdam, D. (2010). On law, organizations, and social movements. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 653–685.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edkins, V. A. (2011). Defense attorney plea recommendations and client race: does zealous representation apply equally to all? Law and Human Behavior, 35, 413–425. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9254-0.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenberg, T., & Hans, V. (2009). Taking a stand on taking the stand: the effect of a prior criminal record on the decision to testify and on trial outcomes. Cornell Law Review, 94, 1353–1390.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elder, H. W. (1989). Trials and settlements in the criminal courts: an empirical analysis of dispositions and sentencing. The Journal of Legal Studies, 18, 191–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Emmelman, D. S. (1998). Gauging the strength of evidence prior to plea bargaining: the interpretive procedures of court-appointed defense attorneys. Law and Social Inquiry, 22, 927–955. doi:10.1111/j.1747-4469.1997.tb01093.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frenzel, E. D., & Ball, J. D. (2007). Effects of individual characteristics on plea negotiations under sentencing guidelines. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 5, 59–82. doi:10.1300/J222v05n04_03.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garvey, S. P., Hannaford-Agor, P., Hans, V. P., Mott, N. L., Munsterman, G. T., & Wells, M. T. (2004). Juror first votes in criminal trials. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 1, 371–399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodman-Delahunty, J., Granhag, P. A., Hartwig, M., & Loftus, E. F. (2010). Insightful or wishful: Lawyers’ ability to predict case outcomes. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 133–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greene, E. (1988). Judge’s instruction on eyewitness testimony: evaluation and revision. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 252–276. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb00016.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heller, K. J. (2006). The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Michigan Law Review, 105, 241–305.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heumann, M. (1981). Plea bargaining: The experiences of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43, 761–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431–445. doi:10.1037/a002812.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., & Neumann, K. (1997). On the power of confession evidence: an experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 469–484. doi:10.1023/A:1024871622490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38. doi:10.1007/s10979-009-9188-6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellough, G., & Wortley, S. (2002). Remand for plea: bail decisions and plea bargaining as commensurate decisions. British Journal of Criminology, 42, 186–210. doi:10.1093/bjc/42.1.186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koehler, J. J. (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25, 493–513. doi:10.1023/A:1012892815916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kramer, G. M., Wolbransky, M., & Heilbrun, K. (2007). Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference. Behavioral Sciences & the Law, 25, 573–585. doi:10.1002/bsl.759.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutateladze, B. L., Lawson, V. Z., & Adiloro, N. R. (2015). Does evidence really matter? An exploratory analysis of the role of evidence in plea bargaining in felony drug cases. Law and Human Behavior. doi:10.1037/lhb0000142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lacasse, C., & Payne, A. A. (1999). Federal sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimum sentences: do defendants bargain in the shadow of the judge? Journal of Law and Economics, 42, 245–270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • LaFree, G. D. (1985). Adversarial and non-adversarial justice: a comparison of guilty pleas and trials. Criminology, 23, 289–312. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.1985.tb00338.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Landes, W. (1971). An economic analysis of the courts. Journal of Labor Economics, 14(1), 61–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lieberman, J. D., Carrell, C. A., Miethe, T. D., & Krauss, D. A. (2008). Gold versus platinum. Do jurors recognize the superiority and limitations of DNA evidence compared to other types of forensic evidence? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 14, 27–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, T. (2003). The case against plea bargaining. Regulation, 24–27.

  • McAllister, H. A., & Bregman, N. J. (1986). Plea bargaining by prosecutors and defense attorneys: a decision theory approach. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 686–690. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.71.4.686.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCormick, C. T. (1983). Handbook of the law of evidence (2nd ed.). St Paul: West.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, W. F. (1979). The prosecutor. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald, W. F., & Cramer, J. A. (1980). Plea bargaining. Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, H. S., McDonald, W. F., & Cramer, J. A. (1978). Plea bargaining in the United States. Washington, DC: United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mitchell, O. (2005). A meta-analysis of race and sentencing research: explaining the inconsistencies. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 21, 439–466. doi:10.1007/s10940-005-7362-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950–997.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morrill, C., & Rudes, D. S. (2010). Conflict resolution in organizations. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 6, 627–651.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nagel, S. S., & Neef, M. G. (1979). Decision theory and the legal process. Lexington: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nardulli, P. F. (1979). The caseload controversy and the study of criminal courts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70, 89–101.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington DC: National Academies Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Niedermeier, K. E., Kerr, N. L., & Messe, L. A. (1999). Jurors’ use of naked statistical evidence: exploring bases and implications of the Wells Effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 533–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oppel, R. A. (2011). Sentencing shift gives new leverage to prosecutors. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/26/us/tough-sentences-help-prosecutors-push-for-plea-bargains.html?pagewanted=all&_r=2&

  • People v. Falsetta 986 P. 2d 182 (1999).

  • Pezdek, K., & O’Brien, M. (2014). Plea bargaining and appraisals of eyewitness evidence by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Psychology Crime and Law, 20, 222–241. doi:10.1080/1068316X.2013.770855.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redlich, A. D., Bushway, S. D., Norris, R., & Yan, S. (2014). Bargaining in the shadow of trial? Examining the reach of evidence outside the jury box. Award # 2009-IJ-CX-0035. Final report submitted to the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Washington, DC.

  • Rossman, H. H., McDonald, W. F., & Cramer, J. A. (1980). Some patterns and determinants of plea-bargaining decisions: A simulation and quasi-experiment. In W. F. McDonald & J. A. Cramer (Eds.), Plea bargaining (pp. 77–114). Lexington: Lexington Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Savitsky, J. C., & Lindblom, W. D. (1986). The impact of the guilty but mentally ill verdict on juror decisions: an empirical analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 16, 686–701. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01753.x.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schklar, J., & Diamond, S. S. (1999). Juror reactions to DNA evidence: errors and expectancies. Law and Human Behavior, 23, 159–184. doi:10.1023/A:1022368801333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, D. A. (1986). The plea bargain controversy. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 949–968.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spohn, C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. National Institute of Justice: Criminal Justice 2000. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

    Google Scholar 

  • Standen, J. (1993). Plea bargaining in the shadow of the guidelines. California Law Review, 81, 1471–1538.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stuntz, W. J. (2004). Plea bargaining and criminal law’s disappearing shadow. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2548–2569.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson, W. C. (2006). Tarnish on the gold standard: recent problems in forensic DNA testing. The Champion, 30(1),10-16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tonry, M. (1987). Sentencing guidelines and their effects. In A. Von Hirsch, M. Tonry, & K. Knapp (Eds.), The sentencing commission and its guidelines. New York: UPNE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. D. (2004). Sentencing in context: a multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42, 137–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wells, G. L. (1992). Naked statistical evidence of liability: is subjective probability enough? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 739–752. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.62.5.739.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Criminology, Law, and Society, George Mason University, 4400 University Drive, Fairfax, VA, 22030, USA

    Allison D. Redlich

  2. University at Albany, Albany, NY, USA

    Shawn D. Bushway

  3. Appalachian State University, Boone, NC, USA

    Robert J. Norris

Authors
  1. Allison D. Redlich
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Shawn D. Bushway
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Robert J. Norris
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Allison D. Redlich.

Appendices

Appendix 1

Screenshot of Case File Folders

figure a

Appendix 2

Table 6 Percentage of folders viewed by overall sample and legal actor type, and average order viewed
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Redlich, A.D., Bushway, S.D. & Norris, R.J. Plea decision-making by attorneys and judges. J Exp Criminol 12, 537–561 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9264-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9264-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation