Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m42fx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-18T21:47:36.886Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some Determinants of the Method of Case Disposition: Decision-Making by Public Defenders in Los Angeles

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Lynn M. Mather
Lynn M. Mather*
Affiliation:
Dartmouth College
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Only a small fraction of the criminal cases in the United States are decided by adversary trial processes. The vast majority are settled by guilty pleas; many of these pleas occur after some form of plea bargaining — either explicit negotiations over the entry of a guilty plea in exchange for a reduced charge or a lenient sentence, or tacit bargaining, as when the defendant pleads guilty in anticipation of lenient sentencing. The most frequently cited reason for plea bargaining is administrative expediency or “its utility in disposing of large numbers of cases in a quick and simple way” (Enker, 1967: 112). While caseload pressures are doubtlessly important, they may be overemphasized in the current literature.' Frequently both the prosecutor and the defendant want to avoid a full jury trial because of the risk and uncertainty involved. The prosecutor is under administrative and/or political pressure not to lose his case; a negotiated plea of guilty, even if on a reduced charge, is a sure conviction, while conviction by trial is never certain. The defendant's risk at trial is that his sentence on conviction may be much stiffer than if he had pleaded guilty.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 8 , Issue 2 , Winter 1974 , pp. 187 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Author's Note: This article is a revised version of a paper, “To Plead Guilty or Go To Trial?” presented at the 1972 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association. I wish to thank Martin Shapiro, Laura Nader and Nelson Kasfir for their helpful comments, and the attorneys, judges and court staff in Los Angeles for their cooperation and assistance.

References

ALSCHULER, Albert (1968) “The Prosecutor's Role in Plea Bargaining,” 36 University of Chicago Law Review 50.Google Scholar
BARRETT, Edward L. (1967) The Adversary Proceeding and the Judicial Process—1984. Lectures to National College of State Trial Judges.Google Scholar
BLUMBERG, Abraham S. (1967) Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL STATISTICS (B.C.S.) (1970) Felony Defendants Disposed of in California Courts: Reference Tables. Felony Defendants Disposed of in California Courts: Reference Tables: State of California, Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement.Google Scholar
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL STATISTICS (1969) Crime and Delinquency in California. Crime and Delinquency in California: State of California, Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement.Google Scholar
BUREAU OF CRIMINAL STATISTICS (n.d.) Unpublished data. Sacramento: State of California, Department of Justice, Division of Law Enforcement.Google Scholar
BUSCH, Ted (1969) “Prosecution in Baltimore Compared to the Houston System,” 5 The Prosecutor 330.Google Scholar
CASPER, Jonathan D. (1972) American Criminal Justice: The Defendant's Perspective. American Criminal Justice: The Defendant's Perspective: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
DOWNIE, Leonard (1972) Justice Denied: The Case for Reform of the Courts. Baltimore: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
ENKER, Arnold (1967) “Perspectives on Plea Bargaining” in PRESIDENTS COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE ADMINSTRATION OF JUSTICE (ed.) Task Force Report: The Courts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
FEELEY, Malcolm M. (1973) “Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective,” 7 Law & Society Review 407.Google Scholar
FERTITTA, Robert (1969) “Comparative Study of Prosecutor's Offices: Baltimore and Houston,” 5 The Prosecutor 48.Google Scholar
FRAKE, Charles O. (1969) “Notes on Queries in Ethnography,” in Stephen.Google Scholar
A., TYLER (ed.) Cognitive Anthropology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
GRAHAM, Kenneth W., and Leon, LETWIN (1969) A Study of the Preliminary Hearing in Los Angeles. Washington: The Institute of Criminal Law and Procedure, Georgetown University Law Center.Google Scholar
GREENWOOD, Peter W., Sorrel, WILDHORN, Eugene C., POGGIO, Michael J., STRUMWASSER, and Peter DE, LEON (1973) Prosecution of Adult Felony Defendants in Los Angeles County: A Policy Perspective. Prosecution of Adult Felony Defendants in Los Angeles County: A Policy Perspective: The Rand Corporation.Google Scholar
JACOB, Herbert (1965) Justice in America. Justice in America: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
KLEIN, Richard (1957) “District Attorney's Discretion Not to Prosecute,” 32 Los Angeles Bar Bulletin 323.Google Scholar
KUH, Richard H. (1966-67) “Plea Copping,” 24 Bar Bulletin of New York County Lawyer's Association 160.Google Scholar
LEVIN, Martin A. (1971) ““Urban Politics and Judicial Behavior,” 1 The Journal of Legal Studies 193.Google Scholar
LEVIN, Martin A. (1970) Urban Political Systems and Judicial Behavior: The Criminal Courts of Minneapolis and Pittsburgh. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Government, Harvard University.Google Scholar
McINTYRE, Donald M. (1968) “A Study of Judicial Dominance of the Charging Process,” 59 Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science 463.Google Scholar
McINTYRE, Donald M., and David, LIPPMAN (1970) “Prosecutors and Early Disposition of Felony Cases,” 56 American Bar Association Journal 1154.Google Scholar
MEGLIO, John J. (1969) “Comparative Study of the District Attorneys' Offices in Los Angeles and Brooklyn,” 5 The Prosecutor 237.Google Scholar
MILESKI, Maureen (1971) “Courtroom Encounters: An Observation Study of a Lower Criminal Court,” 5 Law & Society Review 473.Google Scholar
MILLER, Justin (1927) “The Compromise of Criminal Cases,” 1 Southern California Law Review 1.Google Scholar
MOLEY, Raymond (1929) Politics and Criminal Prosecution. New York: Minton, Balch and Co.Google Scholar
NEWMAN, Donald J. (1966) Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial. Conviction: The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
OAKS, Dallin H. and Warren, LEHMAN (1968) A Criminal Justice System and the Indigent. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
PRESIDENT'S COMMISSION ON LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (1967) Task Force Report: The Courts. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
ROSETT, Arthur (1967) “The Negotiated Guilty Plea,” 374 Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 70.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, Jerome (1967) “Social Control in the Adversary System,” 11 Journal of Conflict Resolution 51.Google Scholar
SMITH, Gerald W. and Max A., WENDELL (1968) “Public Defenders and Private Attorneys: A Comparison of Cases,” 27 The Legal Aid Briefcase 95.Google Scholar
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA LAW REVIEW [Comment] (1969) “Prosecutorial Discretion in the Initiation of Criminal Complaints,” 42 Southern California Law Review 519.Google Scholar
SPRADLEY, James P. (1970) You Owe Yourself a Drunk. You Owe Yourself a Drunk: Little, Brown & Co.Google Scholar
SUBIN, Harry I. (1966) Criminal Justice in a Metropolitan Court. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Criminal Justice.Google Scholar
SUDNOW, David (1965) “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office,” 12 Social Problems 255.Google Scholar
TRAMMELL, George W. (1969) “Control of System Policy and Practice by the Office of District Attorney in Brooklyn and Los Angeles,” 5 The Prosecutor 242.Google Scholar
U.C.L.A. LAW REVIEW | Note | (1968) “Marijuana Laws: An Empirical Study of Enforcement and Administration in Los Angeles County,” 15 U.C.L.A. Law Review 1499.Google Scholar
VETRI, Dominick R. (1964) “Note — Guilty Plea Bargaining: Compromises by Prosecutors to Secure Guilty Pleas,” 112 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 865.Google Scholar
WHITE, Welsh (1971) “A Proposal for Reform of the Plea Bargaining Process,” 119 University of Pennsylvania Law Review 439.Google Scholar