Courtroom Workgroup Research Articles

Who Said Anything About Justice? Bail Court and the Culture of Adjournment

Abstract The criminal court is supposed to be a place of adversarial justice; however, these formal legal values do not appear to translate into practice. The courtroom workgroup, though made up of formal adversaries with widely divergent roles and objectives, is a community of workers whose shared interests include getting through the day as quickly and efficiently as possible. Using data from 142 days of bail court observation in Ontario the author argues that a “culture of adjournment” has taken over the bail process. Rather than the court being run by an efficient adversarial group of people processing criminal cases through the system, the courtroom has developed a culture that emphasizes the importance of expeditiously disposing of the daily docket over distributing justice.

The Practice and Justifications of Plea Bargaining by Hong Kong Criminal Defence Lawyers

AbstractUnlike Western common-law jurisdictions where plea bargaining has been acknowledged, official discourse in Hong Kong denies the existence of plea bargaining. However, defence lawyers are staunch supporters of its use behind the scenes. Using in-depth, semi-structured interviews with Hong Kong criminal defence lawyers, it was found that lawyers’ justifications are based on four main grounds: it is non-coercive because the final decision is left to the accused; negotiations avoid the risks of trials; plea bargaining is a practical solution that is in the best interests of the client and the state; and the courts implicitly tolerate the practice. The findings can be explained by Eisenstein and Jacob’s (1991) courtroom workgroup model. The present study seeks to bridge the gap in the literature where plea bargaining has only been discussed predominately in the context of Western common-law jurisdictions.

The Role of Dismissal in the American Criminal Court: Court Theories Revisited

This is an inquiry into the role of dismissal in criminal adjudication, a neglected area of study in the modern criminal court literature. The article presents a historical review of the relevant literature that underscores the prevalence of dismissal as a principal criminal case disposition in American courts. Moving into an explorative direction, the essay examines the utility for understanding dismissal of several theoretical perspectives that more generally have been proposed to explain criminal adjudication and court operations. These are: (a) the public safety perspective, in which dismissals are explained by defendants’ risk attributes; (b) the courtroom-as-workgroup perspective, in which dismissals are the product of the organization of the courtroom workgroups; (c) the process-as-punishment perspective, in which dismissals represent the outcome of a process which itself represents the punishment; (d) and the legal or due process perspective, in which legal, procedural-based explanations account for dismissals. Review of available empirical support reveals that as applied to the dismissal phenomenon accepted court theories are in need of empirical testing, and the article provides several directions for future investigations that would help establish their validity. The implications for justice goals of the common dismissal result in criminal adjudication through the prisms of these four perspectives are considered.

The non-prosecution of human trafficking cases: an illustration of the challenges of implementing legal reforms

Research on the implementation of reforms focusing on policies and practices of the criminal court system reveals that members of the courtroom workgroup often resist or circumvent these legal reforms. This is particularly true if the reforms require changes in the way cases are prosecuted, affect the likelihood of successful prosecution, or impede the efficient and effective processing of cases. In this paper, I demonstrate that the findings of the Farrell et al. study of the prosecution of human trafficking cases are consistent with the larger bodies of research on prosecutorial charging decisions and the implementation of legal reforms. Like reforms designed to enhance the likelihood of successful prosecution of sexual assault and domestic violence cases, the new human trafficking statutes may not be capable of achieving the instrumental effects that those who lobbied for the changes envisioned.

The Impact of a Risk Assessment Instrument on Juvenile Detention Decision-making: A Check on “Perceptual Shorthand” and “Going Rates”?

This study assesses the impact of a juvenile detention risk assessment instrument (RAI) on decision-making in five New Jersey counties. It uses a pretest–posttest design, drawing on a sample of decisions matched across time periods using propensity scores (N = 1,432). It suggests that the RAI, supported by other reforms, lowers overall rates of detention. Though evidence is not strong, findings suggest the RAI may have reduced reliance on “perceptual shorthand” variables reflected in the juvenile’s age and the time of day of the decision. There is stronger evidence that the RAI increased reliance on the specific factors contained within its risk score. There is also evidence that RAI reduced disparities in detention rates across counties, perhaps by diminishing the importance of “going rates” for detention, rooted in local courtroom workgroups.

Exploring the Boundaries of the Criminal Courtroom Workgroup

The concept of the courtroom workgroup has become a standard way of explaining patterns of decisions produced by, and dynamics within, criminal trial courts in common law jurisdictions. Many such explanations are, however, based on a superficial use of the concept that overlooks its analytical richness. The present contribution aims to address this by suggesting ways in which it might be used more fruitfully. In particular, it is argued that linking the concept to social theory will bring into focus the kind of methodological strategies necessary to understand what matters to members of courtroom workgroups, and how these commitments are linked to actual practice. The arguments are illustrated by reference to some original data from a study of legal aid decision-making in the magistrates' courts of Northern Ireland. Attention is focused on how judges and lawyers patrolled, explored and challenged the boundaries of workgroup norms and practices. Such boundary-work is shown to provide insights into the interdependent relationships that characterize the lower criminal court workgroup.

Front-Stage Stars and Backstage Producers: The Role of Judges in Problem-Solving Courts

In problem-solving courts judges are no longer neutral arbitrators in adversarial justice processes. Instead, judges directly engage with court participants. The movement toward problem-solving court models emerges from a collaborative therapeutic jurisprudence framework. While most scholars argue judges are the central courtroom actors within problem-solving courts, we find judges are the stars front-stage, but play a more supporting role backstage. We use Goffman's (1959) front-stage–backstage framework to analyze 350 hours of ethnographic fieldwork within five problem-solving courts. Problem-solving courts are collaborative organizations with shifting leadership, based on forum. Understanding how the roles of courtroom workgroup actors adapt under the new court model is foundational for effective implementation of these justice processes.

Roles & decision making processes within JSTEPS' problem-solving court environments

Evidence-based practices (EBPs) are not one-size-fits-all. Rather, EBPs operate differently depending upon context. Within organizations, collaborative learning environments allow innovations implementation flexibility. Through examining data collected as part of the JSTEPS study, we found that problem solving courts (PSC) possess unique team dynamics and roles that affected implementation. For instance, probation officers (POs) working within PSCs are crucial within the adoption and implementation processes and often lead courtroom workgroups' decision-making processes. Likewise, judges often rely on POs and treatment provider expertise backstage, while in the front-stage courtroom they lead the sessions, through more informal and less adversarial roles. Lastly, prosecutors and public defenders often work to achieve the collaborative PSC goals through covert adversaralism. Examining how the roles of the courtroom workgroup actors shift and adapt under the PSC model is a crucial step to effectively implement newly designed EBP processes like CM within justice environments.

Roles and Power within Federal Problem Solving Courtroom Workgroups

Problem solving (PS) courts (e.g., drug, family, gang, prostitution, reentry) are becoming more commonplace. Today, PS courts exist or are planned in nearly all of the ninety‐four U.S. federal districts. These courts focus on integrating therapeutic jurisprudence into the courtroom environment while emphasizing group decision‐making processes among courtroom workgroup members. In this legal setting, courtroom workgroup teams, regularly consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers (POs), and treatment providers engage a collective, case management approach to decision making with shared power among team members. However, despite the court's therapeutic and collaborative design, we find that POs wield powerful influence in decision making. Informed by sixteen months of qualitative fieldwork, including semistructured interviews, observation of courtroom workgroup meetings, and court observations in five federal PS courts in three federal districts, we find that POs exert undetected informational, technical, and relational power within the PS courtroom workgroup. This role and its accompanying power transforms POs into key decision makers, regardless of PS court type, workgroup dynamics, and decision‐making style. The POs' role makes them critical contributors to the outcomes in federal PS courts with important implications for punishment decisions in the federal justice system. With an increasing number of PS courts currently in the planning stages at the federal level, our study has implications for the structure and decision outcomes in these growing courtroom workgroups.

Recent Developments and New Directions in Sentencing Research

Research on criminal sentencing, particularly on various types of disparity therein, has been an active field of inquiry for decades. This paper provides a conceptual survey of research on non-capital sentencing outcomes since 2000. I first look backward at the research agenda posed by reviews in the early 1980s, and in 2000. I then discuss theoretical developments in the study of sentencing in the 1990s and 2000s. I then provide an overview of recent sentencing research focused on the following: (1) court organizational and social contexts, (2) individual courtroom workgroup members, (3) disparity conditional on intersecting defendant characteristics, (4) victim characteristics, and (5) earlier case processing events and decisions. I then outline several directions for moving sentencing research forward into the next decade.

Racial Politics of Juvenile Justice Policy Support

Since 1992 there has been a federal mandate to reduce “disproportionate minority contact” (DMC), that is, juvenile and criminal justice system contact of non-White youth at rates exceeding their representation in the population. There is little research on how juvenile court authorities interpret this problem and their responsibility to address it, yet existing studies suggest that racial attitudes of court workers, and the lack of diversity among these officials, may contribute to DMC. Using a survey of juvenile court workers, the authors consider how court authorities view the importance of addressing disproportionate minority confinement and the individual-level and contextual predictors of these orientations. The authors find significant variation in the extent to which local court workers view DMC as a problem and that racial politics condition these orientations. Their findings support prior work suggesting that courtroom workgroups be seen as collectives that filter and interpret external rules and regulations, such as the DMC Mandate and indicate the significance of race to the focal concerns of court workers. Within limitations of the study, findings suggest racial politics of probation officers and court contexts may impede or promote local responses to the DMC Mandate and that minority representation within the courtroom workforce is an important source of DMC Mandate support.

The Struggle for ‘‘Ownership of Conflict’’: An Exploration of Victim Participation and Voice in the Criminal Justice System

In the past several decades, the victims’ rights movement has advocated for a more inclusive criminal justice system, one that would allow victims greater voice. In response, states have created opportunities for victims to participate in the various stages of the justice process. One example of this inclusion is the victim impact statement that allows victims the opportunity to share their stories and victimization experiences with the court. And, while there is an abundance of research examining the effects of these statements on certain outcomes (e.g., sentencing), few studies have explored how the victim’s role in the justice process is created in relation to, or perhaps in conflict with, criminal justice workers. The current study used in-depth interviews with criminal justice officials and families of homicide victims to uncover views of victim participation. Results indicated that while most members of the courtroom workgroup felt victims should have a role in the justice process, they believed that role should be limited. Conversely, advocates and crime victims sought a more pronounced role for victims in the justice process. These disparate views caused conflict between these groups and raised questions about the nature of the role for victims in the justice process.

Do you get what you pay for? Type of counsel and its effect on criminal court outcomes

Although the Sixth Amendment of the constitution guarantees assistance of counsel to indigent criminal defendants, questions exist about the quality of this representation. Critics assert that ‘you get what you pay for’ and that public defenders are less effective than privately retained counsel regarding criminal justice outcomes. Some research, however, reveals that public defenders are as effective as privately retained counsel because of their working relationships with prosecutors and judges, the so-called courtroom workgroup. The current study tested the assertion that ‘you get what you pay for’ by examining the effect of type of counsel (public defenders versus private attorneys) on four different case processing outcomes for a large mid-western jurisdiction. Results generally show that type of counsel has no significant direct effect. Tests for interaction, however, suggest that for some defendants, type of counsel interacts with other key variables to influence certain outcomes.

PUNISHING THE “MODEL MINORITY”: ASIAN‐AMERICAN CRIMINAL SENTENCING OUTCOMES IN FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS*

Research on racial and ethnic disparities in criminal punishment is expansive but remains focused almost exclusively on the treatment of black and Hispanic offenders. The current study extends contemporary research on the racial patterning of punishments by incorporating Asian‐American offenders. Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission (USSC) for FY1997–FY2000, we examine sentencing disparities in federal district courts for several outcomes. The results of this study indicate that Asian Americans are punished more similarly to white offenders compared with black and Hispanic offenders. These findings raise questions for traditional racial conflict perspectives and lend support to more recent theoretical perspectives grounded in attribution processes of the courtroom workgroup. The article concludes with a discussion of future directions for research on understudied racial and ethnic minority groups.

Beyond the Courtroom Workgroup: Caseworkers as the New Satellite of Social Control

Many jurisdictions nationwide are faced with overcrowded jails, backlogged court dockets, and high rates of recidivism for mostly nonviolent offenders. To address these complex problems, law enforcement officials have institutionalized alternatives to incarceration programs, including work furloughs, electronic monitoring, and treatment courts. These recent trends in legal reform are designed to reduce and prevent criminal behavior by helping to reintegrate defendants back into their local communities. One aspect that has been largely unaddressed in prior research is that jail‐alternative programs are primarily staffed by caseworkers with outside nonprofit agencies. This important group of nonlegal actors plays a pivotal role in crafting decisions to divert low‐level offenders from the criminal justice system; few studies, however, explore the organizational contexts surrounding caseworkers' everyday decision‐making practices. In response, I draw upon ethnographic data to analyze the ways that pretrial release caseworkers in a California county evaluate defendants' entitlement to release on their own recognizance. The results of this study suggest that caseworkers exercise discretion beyond the traditional power structure of the courtroom workgroup. I conclude that caseworkers emerge as the new satellite of social control in contemporary courts.

Courtroom Workgroups and Sentencing

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.

Trapped in the Law: Legal Actors' Attitudes Toward Legal Practice as a Solution for Social Problems

Courtroom dynamics literature has studied the interactions within the 'courtroom workgroup' - prosecutors, defense attorneys and judges, attributing legal practices in the courtroom to the effects of power struggles and professional interest conflicts between the actors. This paper reintroduces into the picture the important factor of formal law and legal indoctrination, claiming that much of the actors' opinions and behaviors can be attributed to their inability to introduce external perceptions of the problems they address into the legal framework within which they operate. The paper is based on 40 in-depth interviews with prosecutors, defense attorneys and ex-judges in the Israeli military justice system about cases involving disobedience to military service - desertion, unauthorized absences and conscientious objection. The interviews reveal the overpowering effect of legal indoctrination on the perception of these problems and their solutions. Almost all interviewees use the doctrinal legal categorization as the main definition of the problems they deal with, despite their understanding of the political and socio-economic dimensions of the problems. Their policy suggestions are equally limited. Almost all interviewees perceive a tension between their perception and the broader, social definitions of the problem, and have different ways of resolving it: loyalism, bureaucratic thinking, idealism, cynicism and limited innovation. The findings shed light on the impact of legal communications and disciplinary discourse on individual perceptions, and support the usage of discursive theory - focusing on Luhmann and Teubner's autopoiesis - as a strong explanation of professional behavior and interaction, even at the individual level.

Achieving Justice for Children

In 1999, public defender (PD) representation of defendants appearing before Israel's juvenile courts began to be phased in. This article reports some of the major findings of a study that examined the impacts of the introduction of PDs. Analysis of interviews with 14 PDs yielded four major themes concerning the impact of the "arrival" of PDs, nature of the court, PDs' role, and PDs' interactions with other court actors. Analysis of interviews with eight prosecutors yielded seven themes concerning the need for PDs, PD as state agent, PDs' role, harms of legalization, disruption of the court, compromising the therapeutic value of the court hearing, and changes in court process. More generally, both PDs and prosecutors placed uncritical store in the value of rehabilitation alternatives. Indeed, the welfare model continues to shape their roles. The findings can largely be explained in terms of Eisenstein and Jacob's courtroom workgroup model.

The Meaning of “Short” Sentences of Imprisonment and Offences Against the Administration of Justice: A Perspective from the Court

RésuméLa prolifération de périodes relativement courtes d'emprisonnement, de 30 jours ou moins, au Canada est un sujet peu traité. Une analyse des données de determination de la peine suggère que les infractions contre l'administration de la justice sont le plus souvent reliées à des périodes d'emprisonnement de un à 15 jours. Les données suggèrent que les tribunaux répondent à la sévérité des infractions, ou selon un modèle de proportionnalité. Au-delà de l'analyse quantitative cependant, très peu est connu des objectifs et significations que ces sentences revêtent pour les procureurs de la Couronne et les juges. L'analyse se penche sur ces acteurs, qui forment ce que Eisenstein et Jacob ont appelé uncourtroom workgroup, en tant que producteurs de discours et de significations, dans le cadre de la littérature existante, des theories de determination de la peine et des contraintes organisationnelles. Je suggère que la valeur explicative des theories existantes – notamment celles voulant que la Couronne et les juges réagiraient à la sévérité des infractions contre l'administration de la justice, et visent la dissuasion générale et la dénonciation – est limitée. Les entrevues et l'observation des négociations de culpabilité, révèlent que la gestion du risque ainsi que le travail sur le caractère sont des objectifs importants tant pour les procureurs que les juges. L'étude démontre aussi que que le processus de plea bargaining ne devrait pas être analysé séparément du résultat de la determination de la peine.

Juvenile justice reform and the courtroom workgroup: Issues of perception and workload

Criminal justice policies may be enacted, but the actual implementation of those policies depends upon those working on the frontline. Policies that affect how cases are processed in the courtroom can be thwarted by the efforts of courtroom workgroup members. The present study analyzed how courtroom workgroups adjusted to a new juvenile justice policy. Qualitative interviews demonstrated that while there was widespread agreement on the basic tenets of the reform, perceptions of the reform varied by confidence in workgroup membership. Further, the reform inherently increased the workload for some and decreased the workload for others. Those whose workload increased discussed subverting the reform effort in order to continue with business as usual. These findings demonstrated that effective policies must consider the needs of workgroups as adaptation of policies in actual practice depend upon workgroup members' support.