Criminal prosecutions: Examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in U.S. federal district courts

Justice Quarterly

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 394-430

  Shermer, Lauren O'Neill ^a   Johnson, Brian D ^b  

^a WIDENER UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND   (United States)

Author keywords

Charging; Prosecutorial discretion; Sentencing

Indexed keywords

EID: 77951661799     PISSN: 07418825     EISSN: 17459109     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07418820902856972     Document Type: Article

References (78)

1. Adams, W. P., & Motivans, M. (2003). Using data from the federal justice statistics program. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 16(1), 1-8.
2. Albonetti, C. A. (1986). Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: Toward a theory of discretionary decision making in felony case processings. Criminology, 24(4), 623-644.
3. Albonetti, C. A. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law and Society Review, 21(2), 291-313.
4. Albonetti, C. A. (1991). An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Social Problems, 38, 247-266.
5. Albonetti, C. A.(1992). Charge reduction: An analysis of prosecutorial discretion in burglary and robbery cases. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,8(3), 317-333.
6. Albonetti, C. A. (1997). Sentencing under the federal sentencing guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law and Society Review, 31(4), 789-822.
7. Albonetti, C. A. (2003). Model misspecification: Why aggregation of offense in federal sentencing equations is problematic. Criminology, 41, 1449-1456.
8. Albonetti, C. A., & Hepburn, J. (1996). Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization: The effects of defendant's ascribed and achieved status characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12(1), 63-81.
9. Bernstein, I. N., Kick, E., Leung, J. T., & Schulz, B. (1977). Charge reduction: An intermediary stage in the process of labeling criminal defendants. Social Forces, 56(2), 362-384.
10. Bishop, D., & Frazier, C. (1984). The effect of gender on charge reduction. Sociological Quarterly, 25(3), 385-396.
11. Bridges, G., & Steen, S. (1998). Racial disparities in official assessments of juvenile offenders: Attributional stereotypes as mediating mechanisms. American Sociological Review, 63, 554-570.
12. Bushway, S., Johnson, B., & Slocum, L. (2007). Is the magic still there? The use of Heck-man two-step correction for selection bias in criminology. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 151-178.
13. Bushway, S., & Piehl, A. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law and Society Review, 35(4), 733-767.
14. Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). Female offenders: Girls, women and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
15. Daly, K. (1994). Gender, crime, and punishment. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
16. Eisenstein, J. (1978). Counsel for the United States: U.S. attorneys in the political and legal systems. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17. Eisenstein, J., Flemming, R., & Nardulli, P. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Boston: Little-Brown.
18. Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston: Little-Brown.
19. Emmelman, D. S. (1996). Trial by plea bargain: Case settlement as a product of recursive decisionmaking. Law and Society Review, 30(2), 335-360.
20. Farabee, L. M. (1998). Disparate departures under the federal sentencing guidelines: A tale of two districts. Connecticut Law Review, 30, 569-646.
21. Farnworth, M., & Teske, Jr., R. H. C. (1995). Gender differences in felony court process-ing: Three hypotheses of disparity. Women and Criminal Justice, 6(2), 23-44.
22. Feeley, M. (1992). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. Thousand Oaks, CA: Russell Sage.
23. Forst, B. (1999). Prosecution. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime: Public policies for crime control (pp. 509-536). Oakland, CA: ICS Press.
24. Frase, R. S. (1980). The decision to file federal criminal charges: A quantitative study of prosecutorial discretion. University of Chicago Law Review, 47, 246.
25. Frase, R. S. (2000). Is guided discretion sufficient? Overview of the state sentencing guidelines. Saint Louis University Law Journal, 44, 425-449.
26. Frazier, P. A., & Haney, B. (1996). Sexual assault cases in the legal system: Police, pros-ecutor, and victim perspectives. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 607-628.
27. Free, Jr., M. D. (2002). Race and pre-sentencing decisions in the United States: A summary and critique of the research. Criminal Justice Review, 27(2), 203-232.
28. Frohmann, L. (1997). Convictability and discordant locales: Reproducing race, class, and gender ideologies in prosecutorial decision-making. Law and Society Review, 31, 531-555.
29. Griffin, L. C. (2001). The prudent prosecutor. Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics, 14(2), 259-308.
30. Hagan, J. (1974). Parameters of criminal prosecution: An application of path analysis to a problem criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 65(4), 536-544.
31. Hartley, R. D., Maddan, S., & Spohn, C. C. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion: An examina-tion of substantial assistance departures in federal crack cocaine and powder cocaine cases. Justice Quarterly, 24(3), 382-407.
32. Hawkins, D. (1981). Causal attribution and punishment for crime. Deviant Behavior, 2, 207-230.
33. Helms, R., & Jacobs, D. (2002). The political context of sentencing: An analysis of community and individual determinants. Social Forces, 81(2), 577-604.
34. Holmes, M. D., Daudistel, H. C., & Farrell, R. A. (1987). Determinants of charge reduc-tions and final dispositions in cases of burglary and robbery. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24(3), 233-254.
35. Johnson, B. D. (2003). Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departure across modes of conviction. Criminology, 41(2), 501-541.
36. Johnson, B. D. (2005). Contextual disparities in guidelines departures: Courtroom social contexts, guidelines compliance, and extralegal disparities in criminal sentencing. Criminology, 43(3), 761-796.
37. Johnson, B. D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. H. (2008). The social context of guideline circumvention: The case of federal district courts. Criminology, 46(3), 737-783.
38. Kautt, P. M. (2002). Location, location, location: Interdistrict and intercircuit variation in sentencing outcomes for federal drug-trafficking offenses. Justice Quarterly, 19, 633-671.
39. Kingsnorth, R. F., Lopez, J., & Wentworth, J. (1998). Adult sexual assault: The role of racial/ethnic composition in prosecution and sentencing. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 359-371.
40. Kingsnorth, R. F., MacIntosh, R. C., & Sutherland, S. (2002). Criminal charge or probation violation? Prosecutorial discretion and implications for research in criminal court processing. Criminology, 40(3), 553-577.
41. Kurlychek, M., & Johnson, B. D. (2004). The juvenile penalty: A comparison of juvenile and young adult sentencing outcomes in criminal court. Criminology, 42(2), 485-517.
42. LaFree, G. D. (1980). The effect of sexual stratification by race on official reactions to rape. American Sociological Review, 45(5), 842-854.
43. Lear, E. (1993). Is conviction irrelevant? UCLA Law Review, 40, 1179-1239.
44. March, J., & Simon, H. (1958). Organizations. New York: John Wiley.
45. Mather, L. (1979). Plea bargaining or trial? Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
46. Miethe, T. (1987). Charging and plea bargaining practices under determinate sentencing: An investigation of the hydraulic displacement of discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 78, 155-176.
47. Miller, L., & Eisenstein, J. (2005). The federal/state criminal prosecution nexus: A case study in cooperation and discretion. Law and Social Inquiry, 30(2), 239-269.
48. Misner, R. L. (1996). Recasting prosecutorial discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 86(3), 717-724.
49. Mustard, D. B. (2001). Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: Evidence from U.S. federal courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 44(1), 285-314.
50. Nagel, I., & Hagan, J. (1983). Gender and crime: Offense patterns and criminal court sanctions. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 4, 91-144.
51. Nagel, I., & Schulhofer, S. J. (1992). A tale of three cities: An empirical study of charging and bargaining practices under the federal sentencing guidelines. Southern California Law Review, 66, 501-579.
52. Paternoster, R. (1984). Prosecutorial discretion in requesting the death penalty: A case of victim-based discrimination. Law and Society Review, 18, 437-478.
53. Piehl, A., & Bushway, S. (2007). Measuring and explaining charge bargaining. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23(2), 105-125.
54. Reiss, A. J. (1974). Discretionary justice in the United States. International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 2(2), 181-205.
55. Spohn, C. (2000). Thirty years of sentencing reform: The quest for a racially neutral sentenc-ing process. Criminal Justice: The National Institute of Justice Journal, 3, 427-501.
56. Spohn, C., Beichner, D., & Davis-Frenzel, E. (2001). Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: Guarding the "gateway to justice." Social Problems, 48(2), 206-235.
57. Spohn, C., Gruhl, J., & Welch, S. (1987). The impact of ethnicity and gender of defendants on the decision to reject or dismiss felony charges. Criminology, 25(1), 175-191.
58. Spohn, C., & Holleran, D. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18(3), 651-688.
59. Spohn, C., & Spears, J. (1996). The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Quarterly, 13(4), 649-679.
60. Steffensmeier, D., & Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459-487.
61. Steffensmeier, D., & Demuth, S. (2000). Ethnicity and sentencing outcomes in U.S. federal courts: Who is punished more harshly? American Sociological Review, 65, 705-729.
62. Steffensmeier, D., Kramer, J., & Ulmer, J. T. (1995). Age differences in sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 12(3), 584-601.
63. Steffensmeier, D., Ulmer, J. T., & Kramer, J. (1998). The interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: The punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology, 36(4), 763-797.
64. Stith, K., & Cabranes, J. A. (1998). Fear of judging: Sentencing guidelines in the federal courts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
65. Sudnow, D. (1965). Normal crimes: Sociological features of a penal code in a public defender's office. Social Problems, 12, 255-276.
66. Tonry, M. (1995). Malign neglect: Race, crime, and punishment in America. New York: Oxford University Press.
67. Tonry, M. (1996). Sentencing matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
68. Ulmer, J. T., & Johnson, B. (2004). Sentencing in context: A multilevel analysis. Criminology, 42(1), 137-177.
69. Ulmer, J. T., Kurlychek, M. C., & Kramer, J. H. (2007). Prosecutorial discretion and the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 44(4), 427-458.
70. U.S. Department of Justice (2000). United States attorney's manual: Chapter 9.10.100. Capital crimes. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
71. USSC (2004). 2004 Federal sentencing guideline manual. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from http://www.ussc.gov/2004guid.
72. Weisburd, D., Wheeler, S., & Waring, E. (1991). Crimes of the middle class white-collar offenders in the federal courts. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
73. Wheeler, S., Mann, K., & Sarat, A. (1988). Sitting in judgment: The sentencing of white-collar criminals. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
74. Wilmot, K. A., & Spohn, C. (2004). Prosecutorial discretion and real-offense sentencing: An analysis of relevant conduct under the federal sentencing guidelines. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15(3), 324-343.
75. Wooldredge, J., & Griffin, T. (2005). Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guide-lines. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33(4), 301-316.
76. Wooldredge, J., & Thistlewaite, A. (2004). Bilevel disparities in court dispositions for intimate assault. Criminology, 42, 417-456.
77. Wright, R., & Engen, R. L. (2006). The effects of depth and distance in a criminal code on charging, sentencing, and prosecutor power. North Carolina Law Review, 84, 1935-1982.
78. Wright, R., & Miller, M. (2003). Honesty and opacity in charge bargains. Stanford Law Review, 55, 1409-1418.