Court Actors Research Articles

"… give me a lawyer, dawg": recognizing youthful pleas for advice and support.

(1) Youth are particularly vulnerable to making suboptimal legal decisions due to added challenges in comprehension, as well as their ongoing neurological development. (2) This fact is especially problematic in our system of pleas, which frequently expects defendants to determine the outcome of their own cases (by accepting or rejecting plea offers). (3) To better ensure that guilty pleas entered by youthful defendants are indeed knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, legal counsel should be mandatory during any and all juvenile criminal proceedings. (4) Further, an additional "translator" (similar to a guardian ad litem), who has specialized training in developmental psychology, should be present to effectively counsel and support youth defendants who might otherwise fail to comprehend the advice of their attorneys (and other court actors).

“You Don’t Need a Rocket Scientist to Figure Out What Could Happen”: Reasoning Practices in Police Use of Force Trials

Abstract Trials involving police as defendants are rare but are significant events that give insight into police violence and its adjudication. This article explores the reasoning practices through which court actors navigate the disjunctive accounts created by competing claims of “what happened” in a police shooting. The data is drawn from trial testimony of officers and “use of force experts” in police deadly force cases in the United States. We focus on use of force experts who use a veneer of science and police logic to assert particular visions of officer “reasonableness.” We suggest that the systems of reasoning that lawyers and witnesses use in these cases create accounts of police violence that conflict with mundane reasoning and challenge credibility. We show that the proliferation of different reasoning practices and the elaboration of a “police logic” serve to insulate officers from criticism and accountability—albeit, not always successfully.

Unthinkable, Thinkable, and Back Again: The Use of Incarceration in Ontario during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Abstract The arrival of COVID-19 added potentially deadly consequences to incarceration. In response, jurisprudence developed allowing for some to be spared the deprivation of their liberty. However, there is insufficient empirical evidence that this avoidance of incarceration occurred in practice in Ontario. Using fieldwork methods conducted in Ontario criminal courts coupled with data from Statistics Canada, we investigate if a change in the use of incarceration during the COVID-19 pandemic occurred, and if friction emerged between those who may and may not espouse this new outlook. We find a notable and persistent decrease in the use of incarceration, that this was welcomed by many court actors but also that a fatigue with such leniency grew among others. We discuss what this fatigue might signify for the potential longevity of this more exceptional use of incarceration and more largely what this can signify about changes in Canada’s criminal justice system.

The pains of going to court: Unrepresented defendants’ ability to effectively participate in court proceedings

Within this article, the pains that unrepresented defendants experience when representing themselves in court will be discussed from the perspective of court professionals and the researcher. For the purpose of this article, an unrepresented defendant is someone who at some stage during court proceedings is not represented by a lawyer. Based upon data gathered from 20 semi-structured interviews with court actors and courtroom observations at two magistrates’ courts, it will be argued that while most defendants tend to struggle to effectively participate in court proceedings (e.g. follow and understand what is taking place), this is particularly the case for those who are unrepresented. It is important that defendants can participate in court proceedings for due process, human rights and liberal democratic reasons.

Defendants' experiences: Video hearings from prison(s) to court(s)

AbstractThe focus of this article is the experiences that defendants – both represented and unrepresented – have when appearing via video link(s) from prison(s) to court(s), in England and Wales. This exploration is based on second‐hand accounts. In this study, 20 interviews were conducted with a range of court actors, and 403 court hearings at two magistrates' courts were observed. The findings demonstrate that while video hearings were initially introduced to promote managerialism values (i.e., increase efficiency and reduce costs), due process rights have in some instances been undermined. It will be argued that although appearing via video has advantages for defendants and can enhance their ability to effectively participate in the process, challenges also arise in relation to this. This is due to managerialism values generally being prioritised over participation concerns.

Turn taking in Ghanaian judicial discourse

Turn construction and turn allocation in social interactions have been studied from different theoretical and methodological perspectives, the most important and debated ones being conversation analysis and (critical) discourse analysis. Even though turn taking has been studied in informal conversations in Ghanaian languages, nothing has been done on turn taking in Ghanaian judicial discourse. This paper examines turn taking management in Ghanaian Western-based judicial interaction. Working within the conversational analytic framework and language and power, the paper investigated how speaker turns were managed, especially, how turn allocations were shaped by speaker roles and identities in judicial domains. Data for the study consisted of transcripts of nine hours of naturally occurring tape-recorded Ghanaian courtroom interactions comprising civil and criminal cases. The data were recorded in Accra and Koforidua between November 2018 and February 2019 and consisted of sixteen court proceedings and seventy-three speakers. Results indicated that turn allocation was managed mostly by the judges with the other court participants, especially the attorneys and interpreters, occasionally self-selecting or selecting others, mainly, the disputants. Also identified was that not all linguistic resources for turn taking were equally accessible to all participants. In conclusion, the identities and roles of the court actors determine and constrain the available linguistic and pragmatic tools needed for effective turn taking management.

Language and power

Abstract This article investigates the power dynamics at play in interpreter-mediated discourse interactions in the district courts in Ghana. Using audio recordings of authentic courtroom proceedings, we analyzed the discursive practices performed by court actors, especially interpreters, and the ways in which these practices signal their power or the lack thereof. We also examine the way language is employed by dominant actors to intrude on the liberty of less dominant actors in the courtroom and how this is sometimes resisted by the latter actors. We couch our analyses in Fairclough’s theory of language and power and Obeng’s theory of language and liberty. Our analysis shows that interpreters in Ghanaian courts are tacitly imbued with an inordinate amount of power, which is exercised in the service of the courts. The interpreters in our study employ speech acts such as questioning, scolding and persuading to control the discursive behavior of lay court users (e.g., litigants, witnesses) in order to ensure efficient court proceedings. These acts impinge on the liberty of litigants as they are not free to engage the court in a manner suitable to them. This study raises questions about the interpreter’s neutrality and professionalism and its findings could be useful to those entities interested in improving legal interpreting standards.

Hollow law and utilitarian law: The devaluing of deportation hearings in New York City and Paris

AbstractHow is law made worthless to the marginalized? Drawing on ethnographic observations in Paris and New York City, I establish a typology of devaluation practices in deportation hearings. I analyze how informal court practices devalue court actors, the hearing, and the law itself. Despite different levels of formal protections for migrants, deportation adjudication is pared down and devalued in both cities. This devaluation, however, followed distinct logics. New York hearings were characterized by a utilitarian law logic, where process and ritualistic elements deemed inessential were shed, leaving a stripped-down core focused on case processing. The minimal protections available to migrants were weakened further. By contrast, hollow law emerged in Parisian hearings, where everyday court practices eroded the more generous protections granted to migrants through formal law. While analyses of immigration adjudication have focused on decision-making, determinants of legal outcomes, and the interpretation of formal criteria, I instead conceptualize the courtroom as a space where value is actively unmade through informal practices, drawing on insights from the sociology of valuation and evaluation.

An exploration of litigants’ interactions with court actors in Ghanaian courts

Studies have sought to understand the experiences of litigants who use the court system. However, very few have looked at their specific interactions with court actors in Sub-Saharan African countries. In this study, we sought to explore the interactions that litigants have with lawyers, judges, and court workers during the process of civil litigation in Ghana. The study used a qualitative phenomenological design and a criterion sampling technique to select seventeen litigants involved in civil litigation in a Ghanaian court. Using thematic analysis, we found that litigants had confidence in the judicial system. In terms of lawyers and court actors, the participants were ambivalent about their interactions with them. Whereas some had been supportive, others drained their resources and were not altogether altruistic. We discuss these findings and make recommendations for improving litigant experiences.

Traveling to Criminal Opportunity: Defendant Mobility, Socioeconomic Context, and Prosecutorial Charge Reductions

Objective: We investigate the role that neighborhood socioeconomic contexts and defendant mobility patterns play in prosecutorial charge reductions. Methods: Using data from a large sample of criminal defendants prosecuted during 2010 to 2011 in New York County (N = 68,113), we analyze differences in charge reductions for defendants who reside and offend in low- and high-income areas, and for those who traverse socioeconomically divergent neighborhoods when committing crime. Results: Net of individual defendant characteristics, like gender and race, we find that defendants from low-income neighborhoods who offend in high-income locales are significantly less likely to benefit from discretionary charge reductions. Conclusions: Defendant mobility patterns play a key role in defining the social context of criminal punishment. This suggests it is essential to consider both where a defendant resides and where their crime is committed when assessing the role of ecological stereotypes and place-based attributions in criminal court actor decision-making.

Shifting the practice of coercive penal care over time in a problem-solving court

While problem-solving courts represent one area in which rehabilitative efforts have expanded within correctional settings as “coercive penal care,” still unexplored is how the blend of rehabilitative and punitive practices might evolve over time. By conducting interviews and observing a new reentry court, we explore how the court's navigation of coercive penal care transforms over time. We argue that initially, the introduction of rehabilitative goals was mostly subverted by the court's existing punitive criminal legal system and organizational structure. This occurred through court actors prioritizing internal over external goals and metrics in the program, and articulating self-responsibilization narratives for success. As the court progressed, court actors shifted toward emphasizing individualism. Increased individualism occurred in recognition of the complex barriers that participants faced, but presented a double-edged sword: actors focused more on the individual needs of participants beyond program requirements, but also increased individual accountability by participants. This greater emphasis on individualization also allowed court actors to resolve sometimes competing rehabilitative and punitive goals through increased discretion.

Court Actors’ Perceptions of Barriers to Veterans’ Treatment Court Participation

Court Actors’ Perceptions of Barriers to Veterans’ Treatment Court Participation

Reflections from accused: Advice on navigating life on bail

AbstractAccused individuals employ various techniques in response to the challenges posed by living with bail conditions. By asking ‘what advice would you give to an accused individual who must appear in bail court and who will be assigned conditional bail’, this study assesses how individuals navigate release on bail in the community. A thematic analysis of interviews with 108 accused yielded three master themes: ‘abiding by the system’; a ‘broken system’; and ‘working the system’. The findings add to current research by identifying points of similarity, but also difference, in how common discourses used by bail court actors and bail scholars – including responsibilisation, self‐governance, and accountability – are responded to by accused. The results reveal how individuals accused of a crime find ways to assume a more advantageous position within a system largely perceived as working against them.

Pretrial Risk Assessment, Release Recommendations, and Racial Bias

We examined how the presentation of risk assessment results and the race of the person charged affected pretrial court actors’ recommendations to release a person with or without conditions. A sample of 246 pretrial court actors read vignettes that varied risk framing (success, failure), risk format (probability, frequency), risk level (low, high), and race of the person charged (Black, White). Pretrial release recommendations did not differ as a function of framing or format overall or by race. Pretrial court actors were more likely to recommend release with conditions compared with release without conditions in the high- versus low-risk groups when the person was White but not when the person was Black. Findings fail to support changes to the presentation of pretrial risk assessment results as strategies to enhance their impact on release recommendations and underscore the need for efforts to ensure equitable application of risk assessment results for people of color.

Contested by the State: Institutional Offloading in the Case of Crossover Youth

How do people become the responsibility of one state institution over another? Prevailing theory suggests that marginalized groups are funneled toward increasingly coercive control over the life course, yet more coercive institutions may not always assume responsibility for people sent their way. This article uses the unique case of crossover youth—children at the junction of child welfare and juvenile justice systems—to illustrate how state institutions negotiate and contest responsibility for marginalized groups. To explain this process, I advance a conceptual framework of institutional offloading, which contends that institutional actors seek to offload responsibility for eligible tasks or clients they perceive to unduly strain the resources at their disposal and expose them to blame. Drawing on ethnographic data from a California juvenile court and interviews with court actors, the analysis demonstrates how actors from Social Services, on one side, and Probation, on the other, attempt to offload responsibility for crossover youth. In this process, institutional actors construct and contest crossover youths’ status as dependent or delinquent. The findings highlight the importance of analyzing governance decisions as interlocking state processes and illuminate mechanisms by which the pipeline to prison for marginalized groups may be perpetuated and potentially disrupted.

Persistent Paternalism: The Instantiation of Gendered Attributions in the System Response to Girls.

Prior research suggests that the juvenile legal system does too little to address the sources and underlying reasons for girls' court referrals. Drawing on attribution theories, the current study examined perspectives that characterize the response of the system to girls' behaviors. Data from this study were derived from a multimethod, qualitative study on system-involved girls. We find that court actors hold gendered attributions of girls' delinquency, in turn informing their decision-making about how to treat and sanction girls. Paternalism remains a persistent feature in how the system locates, defines, and responds to girls through varying gendered attributions. The findings lend further support to attribution perspectives that suggest implicit gender-biases influence court actor decision-making, exacerbating the challenges girls face in and out of the juvenile legal system. By extension, this study offers concrete policy and practice implications for systems change and improving its response to girls.

Gender in the Courtroom Workgroup: Understanding the Relationship Between the Composition of Workgroups and the Gender Gap in Punishment

For decades, research has revealed a gender disparity in criminal case outcomes. This phenomenon was traditionally explained as a product of male court actors’ protectiveness of women and the minimization of female threat. In the current study, we capitalize on the increasing gender diversity of courts to examine if the gender gap in punishment is explained by the gender composition of the decision-making body in criminal courts: the courtroom workgroup. Using a sample of felony cases from Florida’s circuit courts in 2017 ( N = 10,605), we measure workgroups as judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys assigned to the same division. We find that the gender diversity of the workgroup does not explain variations in court outcomes, nor does it explain the presence of gender disparities we observed in all but one of our case outcomes. As such, male protectionism is insufficient to explain the more lenient treatment of women in Florida’s criminal courts.

Homeless Group Representation in Detroit’s Problem-Solving Court

The proliferation of problem-solving courts reflects a growing recognition that traditional punitive institutions tend to perpetuate cycles of poverty. Problem-solving courts expand the types of knowledge and resources available to court actors to help them address clients’ basic needs, provide ongoing support, and reduce recidivism. But the same qualities that enable judicial flexibility and collaboration can also undermine court goals, affecting the ability of court actors to understand the needs of indigent clients and resolve outstanding legal issues. This article analyzes the role of a social action membership organization in establishing Detroit’s homeless court. Our findings document how the group’s involvement influenced the court in procedure and substance and created space for negotiations that foreground clients’ self-defined needs. Collaboration shaped how defense attorneys thought about the purpose of the court and what they advocated for when meeting with judges and prosecutors on topics such as court accessibility, client sense of safety, and (in)ability to pay. These findings suggest the importance of having those most affected involved in the earliest stages of court creation to access procedural representation. We also consider administrative barriers to establishing a homeless court model within district courts.

Trends in Prison Sentences and Racial Disparities: 20-Years of Sentencing Under Florida’s Criminal Punishment Code

Objectives The U.S. prison population has fallen 15% overall, 28% for Blacks, and 21% for Hispanics since the Great Recession began. These trends occurred despite rising defendant criminal histories and the continued presence of the punitive policies that drove “mass incarceration.” We test the central hypothesis that court actors employed several discretionary tools available under Florida's sentencing system to reduce prison use, which in turn reduced direct and indirect racial disparities. Methods To test this hypothesis, we utilized 20 years of felony cases. Our analyses employ current best practices for testing interactive effects and decomposition models to identify changes in prison use and the factors associated with these changes. Results We find criminal history scores rose sharply, but prison use and racial disparities therein fell markedly in the past decade. The key factors driving these trends are reductions in the influence of criminal history on decision-making, increased use of mitigated departures, and the flexibility of Florida's sentencing system to accommodate mitigated departures. In fact, if Florida's sentencing rules had been followed more closely, racial disparities in prison sentences would have grown. Conclusions This research has implications for reforms aimed at ending mass incarceration and reducing racial disparities in imprisonment.

Punishing Neighborhood “Outsiders”: Neighborhood Punishment Rates and the Spatial Mis(match) Between Defendants’ Residence and Arrest Locations

This study examines how “outsider” arrests (i.e., arrests that happen in neighborhoods where defendants do not reside) and other covariates impact community-level punishment outcomes. Using census tract-level data on drug, violent, and property crime arrests occurring in Miami- Dade County (Florida) between 2012 and 2015, we estimate negative binomial regression models across three key punishment stages (pretrial detention, conviction, incarceration). Our findings suggest neighborhoods with higher levels of “outsider” cases, concentrated disadvantage, and Black defendants experience significantly higher rates of pretrial detention, conviction, and incarceration, net of controls. These findings vary across crime types, implying that such factors may also shape court actors’ focal concerns regarding neighborhood outsiders and other demographic factors. We discuss implications and directions for future research.