The Identification of Real-Offense Decision Making in Prosecution

• In Event: How Do Prosecutors Decide? Socioeconomic Factors, Race, and Prior Records

Abstract

The statutory importance of relevant conduct is limited outside US federal sentencing guidelines—state penal and procedural codes do not typically allow for criminal charges not resulting in conviction to be considered in sentencing and other courtroom decisions. Nevertheless, both past and present dropped charges may shape court actor decision making. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the roles that legally extraneous prior records and current charges play in the administration of justice in state courts. Using data extracted from the case management system of a large prosecutor’s office in Florida, I find that defendants with more 1) prior cases not resulting in conviction and 2) current charges dropped early in case processing are generally more likely to experience case filing, charge increase, conviction, and incarceration, and less likely to receive a charge reduction. Effects are more consistent when the dropped case or charge involves a felony rather than misdemeanor offense. These findings are interpreted as evidence of a “real-offense” approach to prosecution, which may undermine the courtroom fact-finding process and create pathways for historical injustices to generate inequity in current cases.

Author

• R.R. Dunlea, University of Massachusetts Lowell