Preliminary report on race and Washington's criminal justice system

Washington Law Review

Volumn 87, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 1-49

  González, Steven C ^a   Chang, Robert S ^b  

^a Washington State Access to Justice Board ^*  (United States)

^b Korematsu Center for Law and Equality   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84859148391     PISSN: 00430617     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (119)

1. Scott Christianson, Corrections Law Developments: Racial Discrimination and Prison Confinement-A Follow-Up, 16 Crim. L. Bull. 616, 617 (1980).
2. Steve Miletich, Two State Supreme Court Justices Stun Some Listeners with Race Comments, Seattle Times (Oct. 21, 2010), http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2013226310_just ices22m.html.
3. Task Force researchers analyzed 2009 data obtained from the Washington State Association of Sheriffs and Police Chiefs, and then replicated the commission versus disparity figure, originally compiled by Crutchfield et al., and found that 55% of the black-white disproportionality in imprisonment rates is attributable to index crime arrest rates. In other words, 45% of the racial disproportionality in imprisonment cannot be explained by and is not attributable to racial differences in arrest rates.
4. George S. Bridges & Sara Steen, Racial Disparities in Official Assessments of Juvenile Offenders: Attributional Stereotypes as Mediating Mechanisms, 63 Am. Soc. Rev. 554, 567 (1998)
5. Robert D. Crutchfield et al., Wash. State Minority & Justice Comm'n, Wash. State Supreme Court, Racial/Ethnic Disparities and Exceptional Sentences in Washington State 72 tbl.13B (1993), available at http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/1993SeptRacia%20EthnicDisparitiesReport.pdf.
6. Sara Steen et al., Images of Danger and Culpability: Racial Stereotyping, Case Processing, and Criminal Sentencing, 43 Criminology 435, 451 (2005)
7. Wash. Rev. Code. § 9.94A.760 (Supp. 2011) (defining a legal financial obligation and when it may be imposed).
8. Katherine Beckett, Race and Drug Law Enforcement in Seattle 56 tbl.10, 57 (2008), available at http://faculty.washington.edu/kbeckett/Race%20and%20Drug%20Law%20Enforcement%20in%20 Seattle_2008.pdf.
9. Robin S. Engel & Richard Johnson, Toward a Better Understanding of Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Search and Seizure Rates, 34 J. Crim. Just. 605, 611-12 (2006); Sandra Graham & Brian S. Lowery, Priming Unconscious Racial Stereotypes About Adolescent Offenders, 28 Law & Hum. Behav. 483, 487, 499 (2004); Richard R. Johnson, Race and Police Reliance on Suspicious Non-Verbal Cues, 30 Policing: Int'l J. Police Strategies & Mgmt. 277, 280, 286-87 (2007); Ronald Mazzella & Alan Feingold, The Effects of Physical Attractiveness, Race, Socioeconomic Status, and Gender of Defendants and Victims on Judgments of Mock Jurors: A Meta-Analysis, 24 J. Applied Soc. Psychol. 1315, 1333 (1994); Laura T. Sweeney & Craig Haney, The Influence of Race on Sentencing: A Meta-Analytic Review of Experimental Studies, 10 Behav. Sci. & L. 179, 192-93 (1992).
10. Elizabeth A. Phelps et al., Performance on Indirect Measures of Race Evaluation Predicts Amygdala Activation, 12 J. Cognitive Neurosci. 729, 729-30 (2000).
11. Ian F. Haney López, The Social Construction of Race: Some Observations on Illusion, Fabrication, and Choice, 29 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 1, 6 (1994).
12. Benjamin Bailey, Dominican-American Ethnic/Racial Identities and United States Social Categories, 35 Int'l Migration Rev. 677, 677-78 (2001) ("The majority of Dominicans have sub-Saharan African ancestry, which would make them 'black' by historical United States 'onedrop' rules. "
13. Samuel L. Baily, Chain Migration of Italians to Argentina: Case Studies of the Agnonesi and the Sirolesi, Studi Emigrazione, Mar. 1982, at 73, 75-76.
14. J. F. Normano & Antonello Gerbi, The Japanese in South America 3-4 (1943).
15. Susan Saulny, Counting by Race Can Throw off Some Numbers, N.Y. Times, Feb. 10, 2011, at A1, available at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/10/us/10count.html?scp=1&sq=race%20count ing&st=cse.
16. Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Rethinking Racism: Toward a Structural Interpretation, 62 Am. Soc. Rev. 465, 475-76 (1997).
17. Doug Chin, Seattle's International District: The Making of a Pan-Asian American Community 22 (2001) (documenting the 1886 attempted forcible removal of 350 Chinese immigrants from Seattle); Roger Daniels, Asian America: Chinese and Japanese in the United States since 1850, at 59-60 (1988) (documenting the forcible removal of Chinese from Tacoma throughout 1885 and 1886).
18. Mark L. Lazarus III, An Historical Analysis of Alien Land Law: Washington Territory & State 1853-1889, 12 U. Puget Sound L. Rev. 197, 235-36 (1989).
19. Cal. Educ. Code §§ 8003, 8004 (Deering 1944) (repealed 1947) (authorizing the segregation of children of Chinese, Japanese, or Mongolian parentage, and Indians under certain circumstances); People v. Hall, 4 Cal. 399 (1854) (interpreting a statute that excluded "Blacks" and "Indians" from testifying against white defendants, and classifying Chinese persons as either "Indian" or "Black" in order to exclude the testimony of a Chinese witness against the white defendant).
20. Stefanie Johnson, Blocking Racial Intermarriage Laws in 1935 and 1937: Seattle's First Civil Rights Coalition, Seattle C.R. & Lab. Hist. Project (2005), http://depts.washington.edu/civilr/antimiscegenation.htm. The Washington Territory, however, did ban interracial marriage from 1866 to 1868. Act of Jan. 20, 1866, § 2(3), 1865-1866 Wash. Sess. Laws 80, 81 ("Marriages... are prohibited... [w]hen either of the parties is a white person and the other a negro or Indian, or a person of one-half or more negro or Indian blood."), repealed by Act of Jan. 23, 1868, § 1, 1867-1868 Wash. Sess. Laws 47, 47-48; Act of Jan. 29, 1855, § 1, 1854-1855 Wash. Sess. Laws 33, 33 ("[A]ll marriages heretofore solemnized in this territory, where one of the parties to such marriage shall be a white person, and the other possessed of one-fourth or more negro blood, or more than one-half Indian blood, are hereby declared void.").
21. Ronald Takaki, Strangers from a Different Shore: A History of Asian Americans 342 (1989).
22. Johnson, ("Four distinct racial minorities-blacks, Filipinos, Japanese, and Chinese-dominated the Seattle's [sic] civil rights politics over the 1930s, and each group brought something different to the political table.... ").
23. ("The 1935 and 1937 campaigns laid the groundwork for future multi-ethnic collaboration on subsequent civil rights and progressive issues. ").
24. David A. Takami, Divided Destiny: A History of Japanese Americans in Seattle 46 (1998).
25. Robert S. Chang & Catherine E. Smith, John Calmore's America, 86 N.C. L. Rev. 739, 748-49 (2008).
26. Quintard Taylor, The Forging of a Black Community: Seattle's Central District from 1870 Through the Civil Rights Era 178-80 (1994).
27. Henry W. McGee, Jr., Seattle's Central District, 1990-2006: Integration or Displacement?, 39 Urb. Law. 167, 214-16 (2007).
28. Exhibit 2: Declaration and Report of Robert D. Crutchfield, Ph.D. at 244-45, Farrakhan v. Gregoire, No. 2:96-cv-00076-RHW (E.D. Wash. Jan. 27, 2006), ECF No. 233-4, available at http://moritzlaw.osu.edu/electionlaw/litigation/documents/exhibitsstatementof materialfactspart3.pdf.
29. George S. Bridges & Robert D. Crutchfield, Inst. for Pub. Policy & Mgmt., Univ. of Wash., Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Imprisonment 26 (1986).
30. Charles Z. Smith, Wash. State Minority & Justice Task Force, Wash. State Supreme Court, Final Report, at xxi (1990), available at http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/TaskForce.pdf.
31. Sam Pailca, Office of Prof'l Accountability, Seattle Police Dep't, Report on Seattle's Response to Concerns About Racially Biased Policing 1 (2003), available at http://www.seattle.gov/police/opa/Docs/BiasedPolicing.pdf (discussing the widespread perception that racial bias exists in law enforcement).
32. Exhibit 2: Declaration and Report of Robert D. Crutchfield, Ph.D., at 237-40.
33. Katherine Beckett et al., Race, Drugs, and Policing: Understanding Disparities in Drug Delivery Arrests, 44 Criminology 105, 119, 129 (2006) [hereinafter Beckett et al., Race, Drugs, and Policing] (concluding that racially disproportionate drug arrest rates in Seattle cannot be explained by comparing commission rates, but rather are the result of police practices that have a racially disparate impact); Katherine Beckett et al., Drug Use, Drug Possession Arrests, and the Question of Race: Lessons from Seattle, 52 Soc. Probs. 419, 435-36 (2005) [hereinafter Beckett et al., Lessons from Seattle] (concluding the same).
34. George S. Bridges, Wash. State Minority & Justice Comm'n, Wash. State Supreme Court, A Study on Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Superior Court Bail and Pre-Trial Detention Practices in Washington 52-53 (1997), available at http://www.courts.wa.gov/committee/pdf/1997_ResearchStudy.pdf.
35. Alfred Blumstein, On the Racial Disproportionality of United States' Prison Populations, 73 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 1259, 1264 (1982).
36. For instance, because most black victims identify their assailants as black, and because black victims have a higher reporting rate generally, crimes involving black suspects are more likely to receive police attention.
37. Robert D. Crutchfield et al., Analytical and Aggregation Biases in Analyses of Imprisonment: Reconciling Discrepancies in Studies of Racial Disparity, 31 J. Res. Crime & Delinq. 166, 179 (1994).
38. The informational resources and preliminary findings were made available to the Recommendations and Implementation Working Group to help inform their policy recommendations.
39. Marc Mauer & Ryan S. King, The Sentencing Project, Uneven Justice: State Rates of Incarceration by Race and Ethnicity 4 tbl.1 (2007), available at http://sentencingproject.org/doc/publications/rd_stateratesofincbyraceandethnicity.pdf.
40. These ratios are comparisons between the rates per 100,000. For example, Figure 1 illustrates that blacks and Native Americans are, respectively, over five and two times more likely than whites to be convicted of a violent offense. The 2010 data are on file with the Gonzaga Law Review.
41. Patrick A. Langan, Racism on Trial: New Evidence to Explain the Racial Composition of Prisons in the United States, 76 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 666 (1985) (relying on victim reports to generate a study on the racial composition of prisons).
42. Tammy Rinehart Kochel et al., Effect of Suspect Race on Officers' Arrest Decisions, 49 Criminology 473, 475 (2011).
43. See Washington State Employment Situation Report for March 2010, Wash. State Emp't Sec. Dep't (Apr. 13, 2010) (on file with Washington Law Review) which states: Historically, the Black or African American population has had the highest unemployment rates, roughly twice that of both white and Asian populations. For the first quarter of 2010, the Black or African American population had an unemployment rate of 16.7 percent, the white and Asian populations, 9.5 percent and 8.1 percent, respectively. The Black or African American unemployment rate jumped by 3.1 percent between the first quarter of 2009 and the first quarter of 2010, while white and Asian populations increased only 1.3 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively.
44. See generally John A. Powell, Structural Racism: Building upon the Insights of John Calmore, 86 N.C. L. Rev. 791 (2008).
45. Wash. State Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, Disproportionality and Disparity in Juvenile Sentencing, Fiscal Year 2005, at 1 & tbl.1 (2005), available at http://www.cfc.wa.gov/PublicationSentencing/DisparityDisproportionality/Adult_DisparityDisprop ortionality_FY2005.pdf.
46. Emily R. Cabaniss et al., Reducing Disproportionate Minority Contact in the Juvenile Justice System: Promising Practices, 12 Aggression & Violent Behav. 393, 394-400 (2007) (discussing scholarly and congressional efforts that have taken place since 1988).
47. Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Comm., Wash. State Dep't of Soc. & Health Servs., Title II Formula Grants Program Application: Comprehensive 3-Year Plan for FFY 2009-2011, at 13 (2009), available at http://juvjustice.njjn.org/media/ resources/public/resource_308.pdf.
48. Washington State's JRA serves the state's highest-risk youth. Governor's Juvenile Justice Advisory Comm., at 4. A county juvenile court may commit a particular juvenile offender to JRA custody if the individual has committed many lower-level offenses or a serious crime.
49. Wash. State Sentencing Guidelines Comm'n, at 3 & tbl.2.
50. Alexes Harris et al., Drawing Blood from Stones: Legal Debt and Social Inequality in the Contemporary United States, 115 Am. J. Soc. 1753, 1756 (2010).
51. Thomas H. Cohen & Brian A. Reaves, Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Dep't of Justice, Ser. No. NCJ 214994, Pretrial Release of Felony Defendants in State Courts 7 & tbl.5 (2007), available at http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/prfdsc.pdf.
52. Mary T. Phillips, N.Y.C. Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., Pretrial Detention and Case Outcomes, Part 1: Nonfelony Cases 6 (2007), available at http://www.cjareports.org/reports/detention.pdf; Mary T. Phillips, N.Y.C. Criminal Justice Agency, Inc., Pretrial Detention and Case Outcomes, Part 2: Felony Cases 58 (2008) [hereinafter Phillips, Felony Case Outcomes], available at http://www.cja reports.org/reports/felonydetention.pdf.
53. Beckett et al., Race, Drugs, and Policing, at 129; Beckett et al., Lessons from Seattle, at 430-35.
54. Melissa Bull, Just Treatment: A Review of International Programs for the Diversion of Drug Related Offenders from the Criminal Justice System 23-26 (2003).
55. The Washington State Legislature made several findings in 1989 when it was considering the asset forfeiture law, including the following: [D]rug-related offenses are difficult to eradicate because of the profits derived from the criminal activities, which can be invested in legitimate assets and later used for further criminal activities; and the forfeiture of real assets where a substantial nexus exists between the commercial production or sale of the substances and the real property will provide a significant deterrent to crime by removing the profit incentive of drug trafficking, and will provide a revenue source that will partially defray the large costs incurred by government as a result of these crimes. Omnibus Alcohol and Controlled Substances Act, ch. 271, § 211, 1989 Wash. Sess. Laws 1266, 1298-99 (codified at Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.505 note (2010); see also United States v. Two Tracts of Real Prop., 998 F.2d 204, 213 (4th Cir. 1993) ("One of the most potent weapons in the government's war on drugs is its ability to obtain the civil forfeiture of property that aids violations of the drug laws. ").
56. Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.505(10). The remaining 10% of the net proceeds are deposited into the state general fund. § 69.50.505(9).
57. Eric D. Blumenson & Eva Nilsen, The Next Stage of Forfeiture Reform, 14 Fed. Sent'g Rep. 76, 76 (2001).
58. Cf. Marian R. Williams et al., Inst. for Justice, Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture 12 (2010), available at http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_ folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf (noting that in a nationwide survey, hundreds of law enforcement executives admitted that "civil forfeiture proceeds were a necessary budget supplement").
59. at 12-13 ("One consequence of giving law enforcement a pecuniary interest in forfeiture proceeds is that it can cause them to over-enforce crimes that carry the possibility of forfeiture to the neglect of other law enforcement objectives. This makes basic economic sense; as the return to enforcing certain crimes increases, one would expect law enforcement agencies to devote a higher percentage of their resources to those aims. "); Eric Blumenson & Eva Nilsen, Policing for Profit: The Drug War's Hidden Economic Agenda, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 35, 40 (1998) ("First, these [asset forfeiture] programs have distorted governmental policymaking and law enforcement. During the past decade, law enforcement agencies increasingly have turned to asset seizures and drug enforcement grants to compensate for budgetary shortfalls, at the expense of other criminal justice goals. We believe the strange shape of the criminal justice system today... is largely the unplanned by-product of this economic incentive structure. ").
60. Eric D. Blumenson & Eva S. Nilsen, Contesting Government's Financial Interest in Drug Cases, Crim. Just., Winter 1999, at 4, 5.
61. The highest standard is proof "beyond a reasonable doubt, " followed by proof upon "clear and convincing evidence. " The lowest standard is "probable cause, " which is used in fourteen states, including Washington. Williams et al., 22.
62. Valerio v. Lacey Police Dep't, 39 P.3d 332, 339 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002) (Division II concluding that property may be seized if law enforcement has probable cause to suspect that the property in question was used in connection with illegal narcotics activity); Escamilla v. Tri-City Metro Drug Task Force, 999 P.2d 625, 630 (Wash. Ct. App. 2000) (Division III concluding the same); Rozner v. City of Bellevue, 784 P.2d 537, 540-41 (Wash. Ct. App. 1990) (Division I concluding that initial seizure of property under Washington's asset forfeiture law requires a showing of probable cause that the property was used for illegal narcotics activity), rev'd on other grounds, 804 P.2d 24 (Wash. 1991).
63. Adams County v. One 1978 Blue Ford Bronco, 875 P.2d 690, 692 (Wash. Ct. App. 1994).
64. Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.505(5) (2010).
65. Sam Skolnik, Critics Target Drug Raid Seizures, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Dec. 13, 2001, at A1, available at http://o.seattlepi.com/frontpage/seattle_pima1x220011213.pdf.
66. Williams et al., at 13 ("[T]his is not simply theory. Earlier research found that in states where agencies get to keep the lion's share of forfeiture proceeds, drug arrests-which often have the potential of a related civil forfeiture-constitute a significantly higher percentage of all arrests. "); Blumenson & Nilsen, at 78-79 (discussing how police have an incentive to target buyers in reverse stings because it allows officers to seize the buyer's cash).
67. Blumenson & Nilsen, at 39-40 (noting that traditional drug-enforcement strategy has "a self-perpetuating life of its own" because of the "lucrative rewards available to police and prosecutorial agencies that make drug law enforcement their highest priority").
68. Beckett, at 1.
69. Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.505 (2010). The statute provides only that a property owner may be entitled to attorneys' fees if the owner "substantially prevails" in a proceeding to reclaim his or her property. § 69.50.505(6).
70. § 69.50.505(10).
71. Williams et al., at 17. Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, and Vermont do not distribute any of the proceeds to law enforcement.; see also Blumenson & Nilsen, (discussing reform efforts around the country where voters have approved laws to end the "corrupting incentives" of asset-forfeiture allocation (quoting United States v. Funds Held in the Name or for the Benefit of Wetterer, 210 F.3d 96, 110 (2d Cir. 2000).
72. Williams et al., at 14; Blumenson & Nilsen, at 80-81.
73. Lovrich et al., 2003 Study, at 22. We note that stops by local law enforcement constitute the large majority of traffic stops that take place in the state. But very little empirical data have been collected on the stop, citation, and search practices of these local law enforcement agencies.
74. Clayton Mosher et al., The Importance of Context in Understanding Biased Policing: State Patrol Traffic Citations in Washington State, 9 Police Prac. & Res. 43, 45-46, 47-48 tbls.1 & 2 (2008).
75. at 43-44.
76. Many of the most frequent violations-such as driving with a suspended license or broken tail light-occur when people cannot afford to pay traffic fines or repair their cars. Thus, higher violation rates among drivers of color may reflect socioeconomic factors. at 45-46, 48.
77. at 46, 48-49.
78. at 53-54 tbl5.
79. at 51, 52 tbl.4.
80. The authors concluded that this difference "d[id] not indicate the operation of systemic bias in citing minorities who have only a single violation recorded by the WSP. " at 51. It is not clear how the authors made this determination. Forthcoming research examines and critiques the methodologies that Lovrich et al., employed in their 2007 report on the WSP. Mario L. Barnes & Robert S. Chang, Analyzing Stops, Citations, and Searches in Washington and Beyond, 35 Seattle U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012); Clayton Mosher & J. Mitchell Pickerill, Methodological Issues in Biased Policing Research with Applications to the Washington State Patrol, 35 Seattle U. L. Rev. (forthcoming 2012).
81. J. Mitchell Pickerill et al., Search and Seizure, Racial Profiling, and Traffic Stops: A Disparate Impact Framework, 31 Law & Pol'y 1, 15 (2009). We note that an overlapping group of researchers, using data from WSP traffic stops between 2005 and 2007, employed a different methodology to analyze the disproportionate search rates to conclude that the differences were not indicative of discrimination. Lovrich et al., 2007 Study, at 49-50. They state that because the relative disproportionality between groups is the same difference in magnitude for low-and high-discretion searches, that this reflects a lack of bias in searches by WSP. ("We come to this conclusion by comparing the likelihoods of high discretion searches to low discretion searches, which suggest that officers do not act differently based on race when they have higher levels of discretion. "). But their analysis and conclusions are subject to important methodological criticism. Barnes & Chang,; Mosher & Pickerill.
82. Pickerill et al.,. Other driver characteristics also influence the likelihood of a search. For example, females and older drivers are less likely to be searched than males and younger drivers.
83. Pickerill et al., at 15, 19, 21.
84. Mosher et al., at 53, 56.
85. Pickerill et al., at 51.
86. at 13. We disagree with the authors' interpretations and conclusions.
87. John B. Mitchell & Kelly Kunsch, Of Driver's Licenses and Debtor's Prison, 4 Seattle J. for Soc. Just. 439, 443, 460-61 (2005).
88. Joanne I. Moore & David K. Chapman, Wash. State Office of Pub. Def., Driving While License Suspended 3rd Degree: Survey of Courts of Limited Jurisdiction 1 (2008).
89. Mitchell & Kunsch, at 443.
90. Steve Aos et al., Wash. State Inst. for Pub. Policy, Evidence-Based Public Policy Options to Reduce Future Prison Construction, Criminal Justice Costs, and Crime Rates 41 exhibit B.2 (2006), Figures were adjusted for 2007 dollars utilizing the Implicit Price Deflator (GDP) rate; these computations were performed using the calculator at Samuel H. Williamson, Seven Ways to Compute the Relative Value of a U.S. Dollar Amount-1774 to Present, MeasuringWorth (Mar. 2011).
91. Mitchell & Kunsch, at 440-42.
92. Wash. State Inst. for Pub. Policy, The Criminal Justice System in Washington State: Incarceration Rates, Taxpayer Costs, Crime Rates, and Prison Economics 4 & fig.5 (2003).
93. This figure is based on the average cost of a DWLS 3 conviction ($757) and the estimated number of DWLS 3 cases per year (100,000). Aos et al.,; Moore & Chapman.
94. Mun. Court of Seattle, Partners in Service to the Community 1999-2000, at 7 (2001).
95. Andrew Garber, Seattle Blacks Twice as Likely to Get Tickets, Seattle Times (June 14, 2000), ("A Seattle Times analysis of more than 324,000 citations issued in the past five years also found blacks get more tickets per stop than whites and are more likely to be cited for certain offenses, such as defective headlights. For example, the number of tickets issued to blacks for blocking traffic is four times the proportion of blacks in the driving population. ").
96. Cooper Offenbecher, DWS: A Ticket to Debtor's Prison?, King County B. Bull. (Apr. 2008), (on file with Washington Law Review); see also Mitchell & Kunsch, at 463.
97. Offenbecher,; Relicensing Program, King Cnty., (last updated Jan. 20, 2012).
98. Relicensing Program.
99. 2011 Update to Table 3.4A of Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations, Inst. of Gov't & Pub. Affairs (Oct. 2011), http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/Trends%20in%20Racial%20Attitudes_3-4A.pdf.
100. Schuman et al., at 156-57 tbl.3.4A.
101. 2011 Update to Table 3.4A of Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations.
102. 2011 Update to Table 3.4B of Racial Attitudes in America: Trends and Interpretations, Inst. of Gov't & Pub. Affairs (Oct. 2011), http://igpa.uillinois.edu/system/files/Trends%20in%20Racial%20Attitudes_3-4B-Sup.pdf.
103. Response bias can be produced by such things as question wording, question context, race of the interviewer, and privacy. Schuman et al., at 78-79 (addressing the wording of questions); Maria Krysan, Privacy and the Expression of White Racial Attitudes: A Comparison Across Three Contexts, 62 Pub. Opinion Q. 506, 525, 536 (1998) (addressing the privacy effect); Cynthia Webster, Hispanic and Anglo Interviewer and Respondent Ethnicity and Gender: The Impact on Survey Response Quality, 33 J. Marketing Res. 62, 63, 70 (1996) (addressing the race and ethnicity of interviewers and respondents).
104. Melvin L. Snyder et al., Avoidance of the Handicapped: An Attributional Ambiguity Analysis, 37 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 2297, 2297 (1979).
105. Anthony G. Greenwald et al., Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test, 74 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1464, 1464-66 (1998).
106. Jerry Kang & Kristin Lane, Seeing Through Colorblindness: Implicit Bias and the Law, 58 UCLA L. Rev. 465, 471 (2010) (footnotes omitted).
107. George E. Schreer et al., "Shopping While Black": Examining Racial Discrimination in a Retail Setting, 39 J. Applied Soc. Psychol. 1432, 1439 (2009).
108. Joshua Correll et al., The Police Officer's Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals, 83 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1314, 1325 (2002).
109. Anthony G. Greenwald et al., Targets of Discrimination: Effects of Race on Responses to Weapons Holders, 39 J. Experimental Soc. Psychol. 399, 399-402 (2003).
110. Joshua Correll et al., The Influence of Stereotypes on Decisions to Shoot, 37 Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 1102, 1114 (2007).
111. Tara L. Mitchell et al., Racial Bias in Mock Juror Decision-Making: A Meta-Analytic Review of Defendant Treatment, 29 Law & Hum. Behav. 621, 621 (2005).
112. Randall A. Gordon et al., Perceptions of Blue-Collar and White-Collar Crime: The Effect of Defendant Race on Simulated Juror Decisions, 128 J. Soc. Psychol. 191, 195 (2001); Christopher S. Jones & Martin F. Kaplan, The Effects of Racially Stereotypical Crimes on Juror Decision-Making and Information-Processing Strategies, 25 Basic & Applied Soc. Psychol. 1, 5-7, 9 (2003).
113. Russ K.E. Espinoza & Cynthia Willis-Esqueda, Defendant and Defense Attorney Characteristics and Their Effects on Juror Decision Making and Prejudice Against Mexican Americans, 14 Cultural Diversity & Ethnic Minority Psychol. 364, 367-68 tbls.1 & 2 (2008).
114. Saul M. Kassin et al., On the "General Acceptance" of Eyewitness Testimony Research: A New Survey of the Experts, 56 Am. Psychologist 405, 408 tbl.1 (2001).
115. Christian A. Meissner & John C. Brigham, Thirty Years of Investigating the Own-Race Bias in Memory for Faces: A Meta-Analytic Review, 7 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 3, 15 (2001).
116. John C. Brigham & David J. Ready, Own-Race Bias in Lineup Construction, 9 Law & Hum. Behav. 415, 422-23 (1985).
117. Shankar Vedantam, See No Bias, Wash. Post, Jan. 23, 2005, at W12, available at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A27067-2005Jan21.html.
118. Jack M. Balkin & Reva B. Siegel, Remembering How to Do Equality, in The Constitution in 2020, at 94, 94-99 (Jack M. Balkin & Reva B. Siegel eds., 2009).
119. Steve Miletich, SPD Officer Charged with Assault in Videotaped Kicking, Seattle Times (Apr. 13, 2011), http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2014766865_officercharged14m. html.