Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 12, Issue 4, pp 537–561 | Cite as

Plea decision-making by attorneys and judges

  • Allison D. RedlichEmail author
  • Shawn D. Bushway
  • Robert J. Norris



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).


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.


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.


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.


Plea bargaining Shadow of trial Decision-making Evidence Guilty pleas Plea discounts 


  1. Albonetti, C. A. (1990). Race and the probability of pleading guilty. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 6, 315–334. doi: 10.1007/BF01065413.Google Scholar
  2. Alschuler, A. (1968). The prosecutor’s role in plea bargaining. University of Chicago Law Review, 36, 50–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bibas, S. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2463–2547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2013). Felony defendants in large urban counties, 2009. Retrieved from, on April 15, 2016.
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Edelman, L. B., Leachman, G., & McAdam, D. (2010). On law, organizations, and social movements. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 6, 653–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 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
  13. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Heller, K. J. (2006). The cognitive psychology of circumstantial evidence. Michigan Law Review, 105, 241–305.Google Scholar
  20. Heumann, M. (1981). Plea bargaining: The experiences of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, B. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43, 761–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kalven, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kassin, S. M. (2012). Why confessions trump innocence. American Psychologist, 67, 431–445. doi: 10.1037/a002812.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kerlinger, F. N., & Lee, H. B. (2000). Foundations of behavioral research (4th ed.). Belmont: Cengage Learning.Google Scholar
  28. Koehler, J. J. (2001). When are people persuaded by DNA match statistics? Law and Human Behavior, 25, 493–513. doi: 10.1023/A:1012892815916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Landes, W. (1971). An economic analysis of the courts. Journal of Labor Economics, 14(1), 61–107.Google Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lynch, T. (2003). The case against plea bargaining. Regulation, 24–27.Google Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McCormick, C. T. (1983). Handbook of the law of evidence (2nd ed.). St Paul: West.Google Scholar
  38. McDonald, W. F. (1979). The prosecutor. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  39. McDonald, W. F., & Cramer, J. A. (1980). Plea bargaining. Lexington: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
  40. 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
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mnookin, R. H., & Kornhauser, L. (1979). Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law Journal, 88, 950–997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Morrill, C., & Rudes, D. S. (2010). Conflict resolution in organizations. Annual Review of Law and Social Sciences, 6, 627–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nagel, S. S., & Neef, M. G. (1979). Decision theory and the legal process. Lexington: Lexington.Google Scholar
  45. Nardulli, P. F. (1979). The caseload controversy and the study of criminal courts. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 70, 89–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: a path forward. Washington DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Oppel, R. A. (2011). Sentencing shift gives new leverage to prosecutors. The New York Times. Retrieved from
  49. People v. Falsetta 986 P. 2d 182 (1999).Google Scholar
  50. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 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.Google Scholar
  52. 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
  53. 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
  54. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Smith, D. A. (1986). The plea bargain controversy. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 77, 949–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 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
  57. Standen, J. (1993). Plea bargaining in the shadow of the guidelines. California Law Review, 81, 1471–1538.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stuntz, W. J. (2004). Plea bargaining and criminal law’s disappearing shadow. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2548–2569.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Thompson, W. C. (2006). Tarnish on the gold standard: recent problems in forensic DNA testing. The Champion, 30(1),10-16.Google Scholar
  60. 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
  61. Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. D. (2004). Sentencing in context: a multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42, 137–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Allison D. Redlich
    • 1
    Email author
  • Shawn D. Bushway
    • 2
  • Robert J. Norris
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Criminology, Law, and SocietyGeorge Mason UniversityFairfaxUSA
  2. 2.University at AlbanyAlbanyUSA
  3. 3.Appalachian State UniversityBooneUSA

Personalised recommendations