How to Play the Game: Rationales Underlying and Shaping Plea Decision-Making According to Defendants, Defense attorneys, and Prosecutors

• In Event: Legal Services for the Indigent – New Frontiers in Law, Policy and Research on Quality Legal Representation

Abstract

The reality is that “criminal justice today is for the most part a system of pleas, not a system of trials,” as Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for the majority in Lafler v. Cooper (2012). Ironically, individuals who have to make the actual decision are rarely asked (by researchers at least) about the reasons underlying their plea decisions. Although there has been influential and important research in which defendants and court actors were interviewed about the plea decision process, most of this research was conducted 30 to 40 years ago about a different court system than the one that exists today. Since then, much about courts and the process and prevalence of plea bargaining has changed. This qualitative study uses semi-structured interviews of defendants, defense attorneys, and prosecutors to investigate the (perceived) factors contributing to the rationales underlying and shaping plea offers, advisements, and acceptances. The broad goal of this project is to conduct an in-depth inquiry into the rationales and perceptions underlying the prosecutor’s plea offer, the defense attorney’s advice about the plea offer as an alternative to trial, and the defendant’s ultimate plea decision. Preliminary findings and their implications will be discussed.

Author

• Reveka V. Shteynberg, University at Albany, SUNY