Negotiating Racial Justice: Examining Prosecutorial Decision-making and Criminal Case Outcomes across Three Maryland Jurisdictions

• In Event: Cumulative (Dis)advantage, (Dis)trust, and Sanctioning Disparities 1: Insights from Europe and the United States

Abstract

Contemporary calls for criminal justice reform are defined by enduring concerns over racial inequality as well as an emergent interest in the fundamental centrality of the prosecutor. Yet, existing work on prosecutorial discretion is relatively rare and is often limited to analyses of small samples of particular crime types from single jurisdictions. The current study expands the scope of prior work by collecting and analyzing a large, multijurisdictional sample of misdemeanor and felony charging decisions. It provides a comparative analysis of underlying sources of racial inequality for plea bargaining outcomes across three different Maryland jurisdictions and considers how prosecutors can both mitigate and exacerbate disparities in case outcomes. It also considers whether disparities are generated primarily by misdemeanor or felony cases. The study concludes with a discussion of unique sources of racial and ethnic bias in prosecution and potential policy implications for addressing issues of fairness and transparency in the criminal legal system.

Authors

• Brian Johnson, University of Maryland

• Lydia Becker, University of Maryland at College Park

• Allison Redlich, George Mason University

• Miranda Galvin, Penn State University