Information-sharing in plea bargaining under progressive prosecution

• In Event: Understanding Prosecutorial Decisions: Court Community Dynamics, Progressive Reforms, and Organizational Structures

Abstract

The progressive prosecution movement in the U.S. emerged in response to the role prosecutors played in mass incarceration and its’ disparate impacts on communities of color. These progressive prosecutors have promised to scale back punishment, reduce racial and ethnic disparities, and increase access to diversion programs. Moreover, many progressive prosecutors have promised to implement fairer plea-bargaining practices and have stated interest in crafting more rehabilitation-focused plea offers. Thus, progressive prosecution creates an opportunity, at least theoretically, to enhance information-sharing between prosecutors and public defenders. Recent research, however, suggests that information-sharing remains limited even in jurisdictions with progressive lead prosecutors, particularly regarding mitigating information about defendants’ needs and circumstances – information needed to craft rehabilitation-focused offers. To better understand current plea-bargaining practices in jurisdictions with progressive lead prosecutors, we administer a national survey of public defenders and prosecutors across 62 jurisdictions. The survey covers a range of topics related to plea-bargaining practices, including the role of mitigating information in the plea process, reasons for not sharing mitigation prior to the first offer, and other challenges related to plea-bargaining. The findings from this survey offer valuable insight into the challenges and opportunities of plea-bargaining in jurisdictions with progressive lead prosecutors.

Authors

• Daniela Oramas Mora, George Mason University

• Rachel Bowman, Indiana University Bloomington

• Belen Lowrey-Kinberg, University of California, Irvine