Criminal Case Outcomes Research Articles

The New Trial by Ordeal: Rape Kits, Police Practices, and the Unintended Effects of Policy Innovation

One of the most highly touted improvements in the criminal justice response to rape has been the wide-scale adoption of sexual assault nurse examiner (SANE) programs that provide specialized medical care and forensic evidence collection to victims. Though previous studies have emphasized the benefits of SANE programs in improving criminal case outcomes, this study illustrates how the post-rape forensic examination can also discourage reporting, investigation, and prosecution. Interviews with local rape care advocates across the United States show how the increasing emphasis on forensic evidence collected through rape kits may provide an opportunity to reflect and enact persistent law enforcement stereotypes toward sexual assault complainants. Unless police resistance to taking rape seriously is confronted and addressed, even well-intentioned policy reforms such as SANE programs may end up undermining—rather than enhancing—fair and thorough investigation of sexual assault allegations.

Does the Judge Matter? Exploiting Random Assignment on a Court of Last Resort to Assess Judge and Case Selection Effects

We study 1,410 mandatory jurisdiction and 48 discretionary jurisdiction criminal law case outcomes in cases appealed to the Israel Supreme Court in 2006 and 2007 to assess influences on case outcomes. A methodological innovation is accounting for factors—case specialization, seniority, and workload—that modify random case assignment. To the extent one accounts for nonrandom assignment, one can infer that case outcome differences are judge effects. In mandatory jurisdiction cases, individual justices cast 3,986 votes and differed by as much as 15 percent in the probability of casting a vote favoring defendants. Female justices were about 2 to 3 percent more likely than male justices to vote for defendants but this effect is sensitive to including one justice. Defendant gender was associated with outcome, with female defendants about 17 percent more likely than male defendants to receive a favorable vote on appeal. Our data's samples of mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction cases allow us to show that studies limited to discretionary jurisdiction case outcomes can distort perceptions of judges' preferences. Justices' ordinal rank in rate of voting for defendants or the state was uncorrelated across mandatory and discretionary jurisdiction cases. For example, the justice who sat on the most criminal cases was the fourth (of 16 justices) most favorable to the state in mandatory jurisdiction cases but the 12th most favorable in discretionary jurisdiction cases. This result casts doubt on some inferences based on studies of judges on discretionary jurisdiction courts, such as the U.S. Supreme Court, in which only discretionary case outcomes are observed.

Institutional Influences on Appellate Panels: Presiding Justice and Opinion Justice Effects, and Perceptions of Israel Supreme Court Justices

Prior studies of 1410 mandatory jurisdiction and 48 discretionary jurisdiction criminal law case outcomes in cases decided by the Israel Supreme Court in 2006 and 2007 have shown differences in the rates at which individual justices vote for the state or for defendants. They have also provided evidence of a mismatch between justices’ voting patterns in this mass of criminal cases and the legal community’s perceptions about justices’ voting behavior. A panel’s presiding justice and the justice who writes a case’s opinion may influence other justices’ votes, which would make raw votes noisy signals of justices’ true preferences. This paper explores the relation between voting patterns and the justices who preside and who write opinions in a case. We compare justices’ voting patterns in cases in which they preside and write opinions with their voting patterns in cases in which they do not preside or write opinions. We also compare the voting patterns of non-presiding, non-opinion-writing justices in cases in which a justice does and does not preside or write the opinion. With one exception, we find no significant difference in justices’ voting patterns across presiding and non-presiding status. For some justices, their own voting patterns and the non-opinion justices’ voting patterns differ in cases in which a justice writes the opinion and cases in which the justice does not sit. This is likely due to the nonrandom process of opinion assignment. Overall, we find little evidence that the institutional features, presiding justice and opinion justice status, mask the true preferences of justices. The paper then assesses whether perceptions of justices are better explained by their behavior in cases in which they write opinions than by their votes in the mass of cases. Perceptions of at least one justice may be better explained by cases in which she wrote opinions than by her votes in the mass of cases.

Solving Residential Burglaries in the United States: The Impact of Forensic Evidence on Case Outcomes

Despite recent developments and the growth of forensic science services in the United States, little published research exists on the impact of forensic evidence on criminal case outcomes. The present study focused on the influence of forensic evidence on the case processing of residential burglary incidents in the United States. The study utilised a prospective analysis of official record data that followed cases in five jurisdictions from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The study results showed that most residential burglaries went unsolved. Only 8.2 per cent of the 1,263 burglary incidents resulted in arrest and only 3.2 per cent of all incidents had a conviction. Cases were more likely to have arrests and referrals to the district attorney when witnesses and victims provided information to the police and forensic evidence was collected at crime scenes. The only significant predictor of case charges was witness reports. Forensic evidence variables did not influence case charges or convictions significantly. The study results suggest that forensic evidence was auxiliary and non-determinative for residential burglary incidents. Research for this article was supported through National Institute of Justice (NIJ) research grant # 2006-DN-BX-0094. Points of view expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the NIJ.

The influence of forensic evidence on the case outcomes of homicide incidents

Objective In spite of the growth of forensic science services little published research exists related to the impact of forensic evidence on criminal case outcomes. The present study focused on the influence of forensic evidence on the case processing of homicide incidents. Materials and Methods The study utilized a prospective analysis of official record data that followed homicide cases in five jurisdictions from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. Results The results showed that most homicides went unsolved (34.5% conviction rate). Only 55.5% of the 400 homicide incidents resulted in arrest of which 77% were referred to the district attorney. On the other hand, 94% of cases referred to the district attorney were charged. Cases were more likely to have arrests, referrals, and charges when witnesses provided information to the police. Suspects who knew their victims were more likely to be arrested and referred to the district attorney. Homicides committed with firearms were less likely to be cleared. The most noteworthy finding was that none of the forensic evidence variables significantly influenced criminal justice outcomes. Conclusions The study results suggest that forensic evidence is auxiliary and non-determinative for homicide cases.

Electoral cycles in the administration of criminal justice

Based on an analysis of over one million felony charges disposed in North Carolina courts during the 1990s, this paper describes the effects of district attorney elections on criminal case outcomes. Defendants face a higher probability of conviction and a lower probability of having all charges dismissed in an election year. The results suggest that in election years, DAs are more likely to prosecute cases that might otherwise be dismissed. The estimated effects are more pronounced for defendants charged with property or drug crimes than for defendants charged with violent crimes, and more pronounced in districts with more electoral competition.

Gender, Religion, and Correctional Orientations Among a Sample of Juvenile Justice Personnel

Recent efforts to understand the contexts of criminal and juvenile justice case processing and outcomes have examined the effects of both structural and socio-cultural factors on decision making. In the present research, I treat both gender and religion as theoretical constructs to improve our understanding of the factors that may influence attitudes and possibly decision making. A sample of juvenile justice personnel is used to assess the extent women differ from men in their correctional orientations and what effect religion and in particular, Christian fundamentalism, has in this process. Both quantitative and qualitative methods are employed to address the interrelationships between gender, religion, and correctional orientations. The results reveal that both gender and adherence to biblical literalness, and the interrelationship between the two, are predictive of retributive and diversionary attitudes. The associations, however, are not as consistent as predicted and are more complex than portrayed by previous research.

The Effect of Social Class on the Adjudication of Criminal Cases: Class‐linked Behavior Tendencies, Common Sense, and the Interpretive Procedures of Court‐appointed Defense Attorneys

This article addresses some important issues concerning the effect of social class on criminal case outcomes. Although the findings reported here support Donald Black's (1989) argument that a defendant's relative social class effects the quantity of law applied to a criminal case, they also indicate that this influence occurs through actors' interpretive procedures. Specifically, one group of court‐appointed defense attorneys link behavior tendencies to court actors characterized as different social class types. These behavior tendencies are expressed through the grammar and rhetoric of “common sense”—a knowledge system which is evoked throughout all types of judicial proceedings. The attorneys' expectations of court actors shape their behavior such that lower‐class defendants are likely to endure a greater quantity of law. The article concludes with some suggestions on how researchers might reconsider studying the effect of social class on criminal case outcomes.

The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective

The Independent Judiciary in an Interest-Group Perspective