The Worth of a Case: Rethinking How Trial Court Judges and Attorneys Decide

• In Event: 163 - Regular Session. Sociology of Law

Abstract

How do judges make decisions during criminal trials, and why do they decide differently with regard to similar cases? Relying on quantitative administrative data, researchers have found that trial court judges sometimes dispense of justice differently—but only under certain circumstances and in certain contexts. Extant research offers theories, but little empirical support, to explain why and under what conditions judges diverge in their decision-making. Drawing on over 80 interviews with judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in a Northeastern trial court, we find that judges’ decision-making is often constrained by the decision-making of other actors. Judges rely on information from prosecutors, defense attorneys, and other officials. Moreover, routine court practices and stereotypes tend to anchor dispositions in a predictable manner. Consequently, many decisions by judges are uniform within the same court context. Yet, we also find divergence within the same court contexts. Such divergence occurs when disagreements over the proper evaluative criteria for determining the worth of a case emerge. This can happen when a judge holds idiosyncratic beliefs about a particular type of case or criminal defendant, when a new type of case or criminal defendant is introduced into the court, or when an attorney misreads a judge. Our findings have implications for theories of court official decision-making and for the role of cultural processes in shaping criminal defendants’ outcomes.

Authors

• Alix Winter, Harvard University

• Matthew Clair, Harvard University