Courtroom Workgroups and Sentencing

Abstract

Sentencing decisions are the product of a group of courtroom actors, primarily judges and district attorneys. Although the structure of the courtroom workgroup and the interdependencies among members are assumed to be important determinants of sentencing decisions, the degree of this importance and the specific mechanisms through which workgroups affect these decisions have not been investigated. This study used data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS) for the years 1990 to 2000 to examine how three social psychological aspects of courtroom workgroups (similarity, proximity, and stability) affect sentencing decisions. Results indicated (a) that workgroups generally had very high levels of similarity in terms of race, gender, and political party but lower levels of similarity in terms of age, college education, and law school education and (b) that proximity and stability were generally high. Controlling for individual, case, and distal contextual factors, workgroup factors affected the decision to incarcerate, the decision to impose fines, and the decision to impose restitution. In particular, proximity increased the use of economic sanctions relative to incarceration and stability was associated with a decrease in the imposition of economic sanctions. Similarity had inconsistent effects.

Toward a method for evaluating court actor influences on plea negotiations: A preliminary exploration of public defenders

“…Second, following prior research (Haynes et al., 2010; Johnston & Waldfogel, 2002; Metcalfe, 2016), several variables were created to capture workgroup relationships based on public defender–prosecutor and public defender–judge pairings. For these measures, basic information about the court actors was obtained from the case‐level data, public databases, and the Florida Bar directory.…”

“…On the latter point, relationships and familiarity with the other courtroom workgroup members can make for better plea negotiation abilities (Bibas, 2004; Eisenstein & Jacob, 1977; Henderson, 2019; Metcalfe, 2016). Ulmer (1995) also recognizes that common pasts among workgroup members can facilitate negotiation, including attending the same college or law school and sharing demographic characteristics (Haynes et al., 2010; Johnston & Waldfogel, 2002). These similarities and commonalities can influence decision‐making and efficiency in case processing (Haynes et al., 2010; Metcalfe, 2016).…”

“…Ulmer (1995) also recognizes that common pasts among workgroup members can facilitate negotiation, including attending the same college or law school and sharing demographic characteristics (Haynes et al., 2010; Johnston & Waldfogel, 2002). These similarities and commonalities can influence decision‐making and efficiency in case processing (Haynes et al., 2010; Metcalfe, 2016).…”

Prosecutorial Involvement in Exoneration

“…106 The more distal factors, such as percent Republican or poverty rate, generally have a weaker direct effect on sentencing outcomes. 107 If there is a true effect of regional/political culture or demographic context on prosecutors' willingness to assist in wrongful conviction investigations, we would likely need greater statistical power from additional cases to detect these more diffuse effects.…”

Measurement Issues in Criminal Case‐Processing and Court Decision‐Making Research

“…One recent development in sentencing research has been the widespread incorporation of measures that capture the broader influences of the surrounding court environment (e.g., Britt, 2000;Johnson, Ulmer, and Kramer, 2008;Ulmer and Johnson, 2004). In one innovative study, Haynes, Ruback, and Cusick (2010) examined the effects of similarity, proximity, and stability of the courtroom workgroup on incarceration decisions and financial penalties. Commonly examined structural influences include the relative size of the court, its caseload, and characteristics of the surrounding community, such as racialethnic demographics and crime rates.…”