Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 28, Issue 3, pp 437–454 | Cite as

Is Plea Bargaining in the “Shadow of the Trial” a Mirage?

Original Paper


It has been well established that a “plea discount” or “trial penalty” exists, such that defendants who plead guilty receive significant sentencing discounts relative to what they would receive if convicted at trial. Theorists argue that the exact value of this plea discount is determined by bargaining “in the shadow of a trial,” meaning that plea decision-making is premised on the perceived probable outcome of a trial. In trials, the strength of the evidence against defendants greatly impacts the probability of conviction. In the present study, we estimate the probability of conviction at the individual level for those who pled guilty. We find that, contrary to the shadow of the trial model, evidentiary factors either do not impact or negatively impact the probability of conviction, which stands in stark contrast to the impact evidence has at trials. These findings suggest that plea bargain decision-making may not occur in the shadow of the trial.


Plea bargaining Strength of evidence Sentencing Prosecutorial discretion Counterfactual 


  1. Albonetti CA (1990) Race and the probability of pleading guilty. J Quant Criminol 6:315–334Google Scholar
  2. Albonetti CA (1997) Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: an analysis of the effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures, 1991–1992. Law Soc Rev 31:601–634CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Albonetti CA (1998) The role of gender and departures in the sentencing of defendants convicted of a white-collar offense under the federal sentencing guidelines. In: Ulmer JT (ed) Sociology of crime, law, and deviance, vol 1. JAI Press, GreenwichGoogle Scholar
  4. Ball JD (2006) Is it a prosecutor’s world? Determinants of count bargaining decisions. J Contemp Crim Justice 22:241–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumer E (2010) Reassessing and redirecting research on race and sentencing. Working paperGoogle Scholar
  6. Bibas S (2004) Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harv Law Rev 117:2463–2547CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bjerk D (2005) Making the crime fit the penalty: the role of prosecutorial discretion under mandatory minimum sentencing. J Law Econ 48(2):591–627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brereton D, Casper J (1982) Does it pay to plead guilty? Differential sentencing and the functioning of criminal courts. Law and Society Review 16:45–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bushway S, Forst B (2011) Studying discretion in sentencing. University at Albany Working paperGoogle Scholar
  10. Bushway SD, Piehl AM (2001) Judging judicial discretion: legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law Soc Rev 35(4):733–764CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bushway SD, Piehl AM (2007) The social science contribution to the policy debate surrounding the legal threat to presumptive sentencing guidelines. Criminol Public Policy 6(3):461–482CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bynum TS (1982) Prosecutorial discretion and the implementation of a legislative mandate. In: Morash M (ed) Implementing criminal justice policies. Sage, Beverly Hills, pp 47–59Google Scholar
  13. Devine DJ, Clayton LD, Dunford BD, Seying R, Pryce J (2001) Jury decision-making: 45 years of empirical research. Psychol Public Policy Law 7:622–727CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Eisenstein J, Jacob H (1977) Felony justice: an organizational analysis of criminal courts. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  15. Eisenstein J, Fleming R, Nardulli P (1987) The contours of justice: communities and their courts. Little, Brown, BostonGoogle Scholar
  16. Elder HW (1989) Trials and settlements in the criminal courts: an empirical analysis of dispositions and sentencing. J Legal Stud 18(1):191–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Engen RL (2009) Implications of determinate and presumptive sentencing—making research relevant. Criminol Public Policy 8:323–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Engen RL, Gainey RR (2000) Modeling the effects of legally relevant and extralegal factors under sentencing guidelines: the rules have changed. Criminology 38:1207–1229CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Farrell J (2003) Mandatory minimum firearm penalties: a source of sentencing disparity? Justice Res Policy 5:95–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Forst B (2002) Prosecution. In: Joan P, Wilson JQ (eds) Crime, 3rd edn. ICS Press, Oakland, CA, pp 509–536Google Scholar
  21. Frenzel ED, Ball JD (2007) Effects of individual characteristics on plea negotiations under sentencing guidelines. J Ethn Crim Justice 5:59–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Garvey SP, Hannaford-Agor P, Hans VP, Mott NL, Munsterman GT, Wells MT (2004) Juror first votes in criminal trials. J Empir Legal Stud 1:371–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Heller KJ (2006) The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Mich Law Rev 105:241–305Google Scholar
  24. Heumann M (1981) Plea bargaining: the experiences of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  25. Hofer PJ (2000) Federal sentencing for violent and drug trafficking crimes involving firearms: recent changes and prospects for improvement. Am Crim Law Rev 37:41–73Google Scholar
  26. Johnson B (2003) Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology 41:449–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kalven H, Zeisel H (1966) The American jury. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  28. Kassin SM, Neumann K (1997) On the power of confession evidence: an experimental test of the fundamental difference hypothesis. Law Hum Behav 21:469–484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kellough G, Wortley S (2002) Remand for plea: bail decisions and plea bargaining as commensurate decisions. Br J Criminol 42:186–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kessler DP, Piehl AM (1998) The role of discretion in the criminal justice system. J Law Econ Organ 14:256–276CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. King N, Soule D, Steen S, Weidner R (2005) When process affects punishment: differences in sentences after guilty plea, bench trial, and jury trial in five guideline states. Columbia Law Rev 105:960–1009Google Scholar
  32. Kramer J, Ulmer JT (1996) Sentencing disparity and departure from the guidelines. Justice Q 13:81–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kramer J, Ulmer JT (2002) Downward departures for serious violent offenders: local court ‘corrections’ to Pennsylvania’s Sentencing Guidelines. Criminology 40(4):601–636CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kramer GM, Wolbransky M, Heilbrun K (2007) Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference. Behav Sci Law 25:573–585CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. LaFree GD (1985) Adversarial and non-adversarial justice: a Comparison of guilty pleas and trials. Criminology 23:289–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landes W (1971) An economic analysis of the courts. J Labor Econ 14(1):61–107Google Scholar
  37. Loftin C, Heumann M, McDowall D (1983) Mandatory sentencing and firearms violence: evaluating an alternative to gun control. Law Soc Rev 17:287–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. McAllister HA, Bregman NJ (1986) Plea bargaining by prosecutors and defense attorneys: a decision theory approach. J Appl Psychol 71:686–690CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. McCormick CT (1983) Handbook of the law of evidence, 2nd edn. West, St PaulGoogle Scholar
  40. Miethe TD, Moore CA (1986) Racial differences in criminal processing: the consequences of model selection on conclusions about differential treatment. Sociol Q 27:217–237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Miller HS, McDonald WF, Cramer JA (1980) Plea bargaining in the United States. United States Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  42. Mnookin RH, Kornhauser L (1979) Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law J 88(5):950–997CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mustard DB (2001) Racial, ethnic and gender disparities in sentencing: evidence from the US Federal Courts. J Law Econ 44:285–314CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagel SS, Neef MG (1979) Decision theory and the legal process. Lexington, LexingtonGoogle Scholar
  45. Nardulli P, Eisenstein J, Fleming R (1988) The tenor of justice: criminal courts and the guilty plea process. University of Illinois Press, UrbanaGoogle Scholar
  46. Niedermeier KE, Kerr NL, Messe LA (1999) Jurors’ use of naked statistical evidence: exploring bases and implications of the Wells Effect. J Pers Soc Psychol 76:533–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ostrom B, Ostrom C Jr, Hanson R, Kleiman M (2007) Trial courts as organizations. Temple University Press, PhiladelphiaGoogle Scholar
  48. Piehl A, Bushway S (2007) Measuring and explaining charge bargaining. J Quant Criminol 23(2):105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rhodes W (1979) Plea bargaining: its effect on sentencing and convictions in the District of Columbia. J Crim Law Criminol 70:360–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Smith DA (1986) The plea bargain controversy. J Crim Law Criminol 77:949–968CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Spohn C (2000) Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentencing process. In: National Institute of Justice: criminal justice 2000. National Institute of Justice, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  52. Ulmer JT (1997) Social worlds of sentencing: court communities under sentencing guidelines. State University of New York Press, AlbanyGoogle Scholar
  53. Ulmer JT, Bradley MS (2006) Variation in trial penalties among serious violent offenses. Criminology 44(3):631–670CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Ulmer JT, Kurlychek M, Kramer J (2007) Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory minimums. J Res Crime Delinquency 44(4):427–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Ulmer JT, Eisenstein J, Johnson BD (2010) Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra‐guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Q 27(4):560–592CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wells GL (1992) Naked statistical evidence of liability: is subjective probability enough? J Pers Soc Psychol 62:739–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeUniversity at Albany, State University of New YorkAlbanyUSA

Personalised recommendations