Does type of counsel matter? A Comparison of outcomes in cases involving retained- and assigned counsel

Abstract

Existing research yields inconsistent results with regard to differences among type of counsel in criminal cases. Studies in the area generally compare the effectiveness of indigent versus retained counsel, and public defenders versus assigned counsel, and focus on broad categories of crime. The present work expands this literature through comparing case outcomes between assigned and retained counsel in the processing of criminal trespassing cases. It also contributes through measuring type of counsel in relation to the imposition of charge enhancements, a variable largely absent from the research literature. Results suggest that type of counsel does impact case outcomes, as defendants with assigned counsel were more likely to have a charge enhancement, be sentenced to jail, and spend more time in jail. Focusing on less serious offenses provides a more reflective account of what often occurs in court given that most crimes are less serious in nature.