Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Criminal defense work in a sample of arrest hearings in three states of Mexico: the micro-dynamics of case-level engagement, influence, and strategy

  • Published:
Crime, Law and Social Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We examine variation in criminal defense work in a sample of arrest hearings in three states of Mexico (N = 186). Specifically, drawing on systematic observations, we map the explicit challenges voiced by counsel to oppose motions by prosecutors supporting the legality of detentions. We find that “instrumental” challenges are more likely when defendants are accompanied by friends/relatives, and in the presence of more proactive judges; moreover, these challenges increase the likelihood of a ruling of illegality, controlling for other factors. However, defense practices also rely on more “expressive” challenges and other strategies that weaken the adversarial model. Critically, we also find that judicial decisions are independently shaped by the level of engagement of prosecutors during hearings and the skin color of defendants—darker defendants have lower odds of having their arrests be declared illegal. We discuss these findings in the context of the literature on courtroom workgroups and pretrial justice.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Notes

  1. Arrest hearings are often followed by other preliminary hearings related to the same matter that were enacted as part of the reforms implemented nationwide. These other pretrial proceedings involve an arraignment (“audiencia de formulación de cargos”), a hearing of preliminary review (“audiencia de vinculación”), and a hearing to define pretrial supervision conditions (“audiencia de medidas cautelares”) (Carrasco, 2011).

  2. We developed a fieldwork manual for observations based on pilot instruments and feedback from local advocates and scholars. To capture the presence/absence of a defendant’s relatives or friends, observers were directed to track interventions by courtroom actors that would greet or introduce them in open court when seeking to verify ties, or when providing background information. Observers also noted behavior patterns in the audience signaling a connection to the defendant (approaching the court well, bring food, seeking to engage the defense attorney etc.). To capture a defendant’s skin tone, we used a five-tone scale with polar darker/lighter colors, and a mixed, “mestizo” category. Observed were instructed to first discard polar categories, and then to select to progressively discard others as they sought to best match their assessment with the tonal continuum provided (see Johnson & Richardson, 2018; Rengifo et al., 2019 for similar approaches). Age was assessed using a similar approach. Observation protocols were tested and refined via pilot observations and group training. Importantly, the Kappa scores for the subset of hearings coded by multiple observed revealed “substantial” convergence across items and fieldworkers (> .75).

  3. Per statute, specific charges are revealed by the prosecutor during a subsequent hearing (arraignment or “audiencia de formulación de cargos”). The nature of these charges does not have a direct, explicit or formal bearing in the review of the circumstances leading up to the arrest. This also applies to other defendant-specific information such as prior record, place of residence, or employment status—categories that are typically reviewed during pretrial detention proceedings.

  4. Paramed is a STATA command written by Emsley & Liu (2012) to conduct causal mediation analysis with an exposure-mediator interaction. This command uses parametric regression models to estimate the controlled direct effect, the natural direct effect, the natural indirect effect, and the total effect with standard errors and confidence intervals. These effects are derived using the delta method by default, with a bootstrap option. Since mediation models are akin to structural equation models (SEMs), factor-variable and time-series operators are not allowed, and thus coefficients for each factor analyzed cannot be computed.

  5. The models were estimated with a total 174 observations down from a full sample of 186 because some variables had missing values, so these cases were omitted to avoid estimation bias.

References

  • Aguiar-Aguilar, A. (2020). Gaining access to justice. A subnational study of public defender offices in Mexico. Mexican Law Review, 13(2), 35–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aguilar, A. D. (2020). El derecho a la defensa efectiva en el sistema acusatorio. In J. Arellano, et al. (Eds.), Dialogo regional sobre acceso y debido proceso en el sistema acusatorio (pp. 173–189). CEJA – Suprema Corte de Justicia de Mexico, Konrad Adenauer Foundation.

  • Aguilar, A. D. (2018). Observatorio ciudadano del sistema de justicia. Arraigo, medidas cautelares y ejecución penal. Observatorio Ciudadano del Sistema de Justica.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. M., & Heaton, P. (2012). How much difference does the lawyer make? The effect of defense counsel on murder case outcomes. Yale Law Journal, 122(1), 154–218.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, J. M., Buenaventura, M., & Heaton, P. (2019). The effects of holistic defense on criminal justice outcomes. Harvard Law Review, 132(3), 819–893.

  • Ang, M., & Blajer de la Garza, Y. (2021). Vulnerability, due process and justice reform in Mexico. Constitutional Political Economy, 32(3), 346–375.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold, D., Dobbie, W., & Yang, C. S. (2018). Racial bias in bail decisions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(4), 1885–1932.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bacak, V., Lageson, S. E., & Powell, K. (2020). “Fighting the good fight”: Why do public defenders remain on the job? Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(6), 939–961.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bach, A. (2009). Ordinary Injustice. New York: Holt.

  • Bastos Lages, L., & Ribeiro, L. (2021). El castigo silencioso de los detenidos en prisión preventiva. Estudios Sociologicos, 39(117), 869–914.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bazelon, E. (2019). Charged. Penguin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergman, M. (2021). Prisons and crime in Latin America. Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Binder, A., Cape, E., & Namoradze, Z. (2015). Defensa penal efectiva en América Latina. Dejusticia.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blanco, L. (2012). The impact of reform on the criminal justice system in Mexico. RAND.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burdziej, S., Guzik, K., & Pilitowski, B. (2019). Fairness at trial: The impact of procedural justice and other experiential factors on criminal defendants’ perceptions of court legitimacy in Poland. Law & Social Inquiry, 44(2), 359–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carrasco, J. (2011). Estudio comparativo: El impacto de las reformas procesales en la prisión preventiva en Mexico. In L. Lorenzo, C. Riego, & M. Duce (Eds.), Prisión preventiva y reforma procesal penal en América Latina: Evaluación y perspectivas (2ª, pp. 171–223). CEJA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carrington, K., Hogg, R., & Sozzo, M. (2016). Southern Criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 56(1), 1–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • COLMEX. (2021). Vida y color de piel. https://colordepiel.colmex.mx/vida/. Accessed Jan 2022

  • Duce, M. (2013). Vision panorámica sobre el uso de la prision preventiva en America Latina en el contexto de los sistemas procesales reformandos. In A. Cabezon (Ed.), Prisión Preventiva en América Latina: Enfoques para profundizar el debate (pp. 13–92). CEJA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Little & Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emsley, R., & Liu, H. (2012). PARAMED: Stata module to perform causal mediation analysis using parametric regression models. Statistical Software Components S457581, Boston College Department of Economics.

  • Farley, E., Jensen, E., & Rempel, M. (2014). Improving Courtroom Communication. Center for Court Innovation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fix-Fierro, H., & Suarez Avila, A. (2015). Hacia una defensa publica de calidad. El nuevo diseño institucional de las defensorías publicas en las entidades federativas de la Republica Mexicana. Cuestiones Constitucionales, 32, 157–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fondevila, G., Langer, M., Bergman, M., Vilalta, C., & Mejía, A. (2016). ¿Cómo se juzga en el Estado de México? Una radiografía de la operación del sistema de justicia penal acusatorio. CIDE.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fondevila, G., & Quintana-Navarrete, M. (2020). Determinantes de la sentencia: Detencion en flagrancia y prision preventiva en Mexico. Latin American Law Review, 4, 40–72.

  • Fondevila, G., & Quintana-Navarrete, M. (2021). Pretrial detention and defence in Latin America. International Journal of Law in Context, 17, 75–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gigena, C. (2018). Audiencias cautelares en Bolivia: Hallazgos centrales de un estudio empírico. Sistemas Judiciales, 21, 58–69.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gonzalez Van Cleve, N. (2016). Crook County: Racism and injustice in America’s largest criminal court. Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • González-Bertomeu, J. F. (2020). Different ways of losing: Public defenders (and private counsel) at the Supreme Court of Argentina. Law and Society Review, 54(2), 354–390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hafetz, J. (2002). Pretrial detention, human rights, and judicial reform in Latin America. Fordham International Law Journal, 26(6), 1754–1777.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, R. D., Miller, H. V., & Spohn, C. (2010). Do you get what you pay for? Type of counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(5), 1063–1070.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jesus, M. G. (2020). Verdade policial como verdade jurídica: Narrativas do tráfico de drogas no sistema de justiça. Revista Brasileira de Ciências Sociais, 35(102), 1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, B. D., & Richardson, R. (2018). Race, facial appearance, and the focal concerns of sentencing. In J. T. Ulmer & M. S. Bradley (Eds.), Handbook on punishment decisions (pp. 291–310). Routledge.

  • Karakatsanis, A. (2019). Usual cruelty: The complicity of lawyers in the criminal injustice system. The New Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohler-Haussman, I. (2014). Managerial justice and mass misdemeanors. Stanford Law Review, 66(3), 611–694.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kostenwein, E. (2018). Decidir rápido, condenar pronto. El proceso de flagrancia desde la sociología de la justicia penal. Estudios Socio-Jurídicos, 20(1), 13–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kutateladze, B., Andiloro, N., Johnson, B., & Spohn, C. (2014). Cumulative disadvantage: Examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology, 52(3), 514–551.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Langer, M. (2007). Revolution in Latin American criminal procedure: Diffusion of legal ideas from the periphery. American Journal of Comparative Law, 55(4), 617–676.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lynch, M. (2019). Focally concerned about focal concerns: A conceptual and methodological critique of sentencing disparities research. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1148–1175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magaloni, B., & Rodriguez, L. (2020). Institutionalized police brutality: Torture, the militarization of security, and the reform of inquisitorial criminal justice in Mexico. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1013–1034.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marmolejo, L., Seepersad, R., Rudes, D. S., & Taxman, F. (2022). Exploring pretrial detention and pretrial processes in five Caribbean countries. In C. Scott-Hayward, J. E. Copp, & S. Demuth (Eds.), Handbook on pretrial justice (pp. 384–403). Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mexico Evalúa. (2018). Hallazgos 2018. Mexico Evalúa. https://www.mexicoevalua.org/mexicoevalua/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/hallazgos2018-3.pdf. Accessed Jan 2022

  • Mexico Evalúa. (2021). Defensorías públicas, sin recursos para operar. México Evalúa. https://www.mexicoevalua.org/defensorias-publicas-sin-recursos-para-operar/ Accessed Jan 2022

  • OACNUDH-IBANET. (2015). La tortura en México: una mirada desde los organismos del sistema de Naciones Unidas. Oficina en México del Alto Comisionado de las Naciones Unidas/International Bar Association’s Human Rights Institute.

  • Ochoa Romero, R. (2016). La detención en flagrancia y por caso urgente en el Código Nacional de Procedimientos Penales. Instituto de Investigaciones Jurídicas, UNAM.

  • Ottone, S., & Scott-Hayward, C. (2018). Pretrial detention and the decision to impose bail in Southern California. Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law & Society, 19(2), 24–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Packer, G. (1964). Two models of the criminal process. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 113(1), 1–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Page, J., & Scott-Hayward, C. (2022). Bail and pretrial justice in the United States: A field of possibility. Annual Review of Criminology, 5, 91–113.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfaff, J. (2017). Locked in. Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, M. T. (2004). Factors influencing release and bail decisions in New York City. New York City Criminal Justice Agency.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rengifo, A. F., Ávila, L., Gélvez, J. D., Ramírez, L., & Mora, P. (2019). Trato procesal y uso de la detención preventiva en una muestra de audiencias de control de garantías en Bogotá y Cali. Cuadernos de Economía, 38(77), 581–608.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rengifo, A. F., Flores, S. G., & Jackson, A. N. (2021). From bright plots to blind spots: Mapping departures in case review post-bail reform in two New Jersey courts. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 48(1), 96–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rengifo, A. F., & Marmolejo, L. (2020). Acción y representación: Indicadores de desempeño de la defensa en muestra de audiencias de control de garantías. Latin American Law Review, 4, 1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rengifo, A. F., & Pater, M. (2017). Close call: Race and gender in encounters with the Police by Black and Latino/a youth in New York City. Sociological Inquiry, 87(2), 337–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rojas, R., & Sanabria-Fernández, A. (2016). Investigación descubre graves injusticias en la defensa pública de América Latina. Univisión. http://tinyurl.com/ya6y5z3m Accessed Jan 2022

  • Shirk, D. (2011). Criminal justice reform in Mexico: An overview. Mexican Law Review, 3(2), 189–228.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, A. (2004). Too much heart and not enough heat. The short life and fractured ego of the empathetic, heroic public defender. UC Davis Law Review, 37, 1203–1265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smulovitz, C. (2019). Public defense and access to justice in a Federal context: Who gets what, and how in the Argentinian provinces. In M. C. Ingram & D. Kapiszewski (Eds.), Beyond high courts: The justice complex in Latin America (pp. 113–142). Notre Dame University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sozzo, M. (2022). Inequality, welfare and punishment. Comparative notes between the global north and the global south. European Journal of Criminology, 19(3), 368–393.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stemen, D., Rengifo, A. F., & Amidon, E. (2015). The focal concerns of sentencing and mandatory sentencing laws: Circumvention in the context of mandatory probation and treatment. Journal of Crime and Justice, 38(2), 183–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Suarez, A., & Fix-Fierro, H. (2018). El servicio profesional de carrera en la defensoría pública en Mexico. Politica y Gobierno, 25(2), 301–338.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suffet, F. (1966). Bail setting: A study of courtroom interaction. Crime and Delinquency, 12(4), 305–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tartaro, C., & Sedelmaier, C. M. (2009). A tale of two counties: The impact of pretrial release, race, and ethnicity upon sentencing decisions. Criminal Justice Studies, 22(2), 203–221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Travers, M. (2017). Business as usual? Bail decision making and “micro politics” in an Australian Magistrates Court. Law & Social Inquiry, 42(2), 325–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trejo, G., & Altamirano, M. (2016). The Mexican color hierarchy. In J. Hooker & A. B. Tillery (Eds.), The double bind: The politics of race & class inequalities in the Americas (pp. 3–16). American Political Science Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. T. (2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 483–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verma, A. (2015). The law-before: Legacies and gaps in penal reform. Law & Society Review, 49(4), 847–882.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vertiz, C., & REDEX Perú. (2011). La prisión preventiva en Perú. Estudio de 112 audiencias en 7 distritos judiciales con el nuevo código procesal penal. In L. Lorenzo, C. Riego, & M. Duce (Eds.), Prisión preventiva y reforma procesal penal en América Latina: evaluación y perspectivas 2ª ed. (pp. 227–243). CEJA.

  • Voss, J. (2005). The science of persuasion: An exploration of advocacy and the science behind the art of persuasion in the courtroom. Law & Psychology Review, 29, 301–327.

  • Williams, M. R. (2013). The effectiveness of public defenders in four Florida counties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 41(4), 205–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Justice Project. (2019). Failed justice. Prevalence of torture in Mexico’s criminal justice system. Cooperación Alemana – GIZ.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yngvesson, B. (1988). Making law at the doorway: The clerk, the court, and the construction of community in a New England town. Law and Society Review, 22(3), 409–448.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yule, C., & Schumann, R. (2019). Negotiating release? Analysing decision-making in bail court. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 61(3), 45–66.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Rutgers School of Criminal Justice, 123 Washington Street, NJ, Newark, USA

    Andres F. Rengifo & Lorena Avila

  2. Rutgers Department of Political Science, NJ, New Brunswick, USA

    David Ibañez

Authors
  1. Andres F. Rengifo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lorena Avila
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. David Ibañez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andres F. Rengifo.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest statement

The authors do not have any conflict of interest in connection to this study.

Additional information

Publisher's note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rengifo, A.F., Avila, L. & Ibañez, D. Criminal defense work in a sample of arrest hearings in three states of Mexico: the micro-dynamics of case-level engagement, influence, and strategy. Crime Law Soc Change 79, 555–580 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-023-10081-2

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10611-023-10081-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation