1932

Abstract

Defendants charged with crimes in US courts rarely go to trial. Instead, convicted defendants typically waive their right to trial and plead guilty, sometimes after bargaining for a reduced charge or reduced sentence. This article takes stock of the theoretical and empirical research on guilty pleas and organizes the key findings and limitations across this interdisciplinary body of work. Several areas in need of empirical attention are identified, and recommendations are offered for advancing future work on this important but understudied facet of the criminal justice system.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084755
2016-10-27
2024-06-17
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/12/1/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084755.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084755&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abrams DS. 2011. Is pleading really a bargain?. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 8:1200–21 [Google Scholar]
  2. Albonetti CA. 1986. Criminality, prosecutorial screening, and uncertainty: toward a theory of discretionary decision-making in felony case processings. Criminology 24:623–44 [Google Scholar]
  3. Albonetti CA. 1987. Prosecutorial discretion: the effects of uncertainty. Law Soc. Rev. 21:2291–314 [Google Scholar]
  4. Albonetti CA. 1990. Race and the probability of pleading guilty. J. Quant. Criminol. 6:3315–34 [Google Scholar]
  5. Albonetti CA. 1991. An integration of theories to explain judicial discretion. Soc. Probl. 38:2247–66 [Google Scholar]
  6. Albonetti CA, Hepburn J. 1996. Prosecutorial discretion to defer criminalization: the effects of defendant's ascribed and achieved status characteristics. J. Quant. Criminol. 12:163–81 [Google Scholar]
  7. Alschuler AW. 1968. The prosecutor's role in plea bargaining. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 36:50–112 [Google Scholar]
  8. Alschuler AW. 1976. The trial judge's role in plea bargaining, part I. Columbia Law Rev 76:1059–154 [Google Scholar]
  9. Alschuler AW. 1979. Plea bargaining and its history. Law Soc. Rev. 13:211–45 [Google Scholar]
  10. Alschuler AW. 1981. The changing plea bargaining debate. Calif. Law Rev. 69:3652–730 [Google Scholar]
  11. Am. Law Inst 1934. A Study of the Business of Federal Courts Philadelphia: Am. Law Inst. [Google Scholar]
  12. Bandyopadhyay S, McCannon BC. 2014. The effect of the election of prosecutors on criminal trials. Public Choice 161:141–56 [Google Scholar]
  13. Beattie JM. 1986. Crime and the Courts in England, 1660–1800 Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  14. Bibas S. 2001. Judicial fact-finding and sentence enhancements in a world of guilty pleas. Yale Law J 110:1097–187 [Google Scholar]
  15. Bibas S. 2004. Plea bargaining outside the shadow of trial. Harvard Law Rev 117:2463–547 [Google Scholar]
  16. Bordens KS. 1984. The effects of likelihood of conviction, threatened punishment, and assumed role on mock plea bargaining decisions. Basic Appl. Soc. Psychol. 5:159–74 [Google Scholar]
  17. Brennan P. 2006. Sentencing female misdemeanants: an examination of the direct and indirect effects of race/ethnicity. Justice Q 23:160–95 [Google Scholar]
  18. Burke A. 2006. Improving prosecutorial decision making: some lessons of cognitive science. William Mary Law Rev 47:1587–633 [Google Scholar]
  19. Bushway SD, Redlich AD. 2012. Is plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial” a mirage?. J. Quant. Criminol. 28:437–54 [Google Scholar]
  20. Bushway SD, Redlich AD, Norris RJ. 2014. An explicit test of plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial.”. Criminology 52:723–54 [Google Scholar]
  21. Coffee JC, Tonry M. 1983. Hard choices: critical trade-offs in the implementation of sentencing reform through guidelines. Reform and Punishment: Essays on Criminal Sentencing M Tonry, F Zimring, pp. 155–203 Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  22. Covey R. 2007. Reconsidering the relationship between cognitive psychology and plea bargaining. Marquette Law Rev 91:213–47 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dervan LE, Edkins VA. 2013. The innocent defendant's dilemma: an innovative empirical study of plea bargaining's innocence problem. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 103:1–48 [Google Scholar]
  24. Dixon J. 1995. The organizational context of criminal sentencing. Am. J. Sociol. 100:1157–98 [Google Scholar]
  25. Eisenstein J, Flemming R, Nardulli P. 1988. The Contours of Justice: Communities and Their Courts Boston: Little, Brown [Google Scholar]
  26. Eisenstein J, Jacob H. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts Boston: Little, Brown [Google Scholar]
  27. Emmelman DS. 1996. Trial by plea bargain: case settlement as a product of recursive decisionmaking. Law Soc. Rev. 30:335–60 [Google Scholar]
  28. Feeley MM. 1979 [1992]. The Process Is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court New York: Russell Sage Found. [Google Scholar]
  29. Forst B. 1999 [2002]. Prosecution. Crime: Public Policies for Crime Control JQ Wilson, J Petersilia, pp. 509–36 Oakland, CA: ICS Press [Google Scholar]
  30. Franklin TW. 2010a. The intersection of defendants' race, gender, and age in prosecutorial decision making. J. Crim. Justice 38:2185–92 [Google Scholar]
  31. Franklin TW. 2010b. Community influence on prosecutorial dismissals: a multilevel analysis of case-and county-level factors. J. Crim. Justice 38:4693–701 [Google Scholar]
  32. Frase RS. 2000. Is guided discretion sufficient? Overview of the state sentencing guidelines. St. Louis Univ. Law J. 44:425–49 [Google Scholar]
  33. Frederick B, Stemen D. 2012. The anatomy of discretion: an analysis of prosecutorial decision making. Tech. Rep., Vera Inst. Justice, New York [Google Scholar]
  34. Frenzel ED, Ball JD. 2008. Effects of individual characteristics on plea negotiations under sentencing guidelines. J. Ethn. Crim. Justice 5:459–82 [Google Scholar]
  35. Friedman LM. 1979. Plea bargaining in historical perspective. Law Soc. Rev. 13:247–59 [Google Scholar]
  36. Friedman LM, Percival RV. 1981. The Roots of Justice: Crime and Punishment in Alameda County, California, 1870–1910 Chapel Hill: Univ. N.C. Press [Google Scholar]
  37. Frohmann L. 1997. Convictability and discordant locales: reproducing race, class, and gender ideologies in prosecutorial decision-making. Law Soc. Rev. 31:531–55 [Google Scholar]
  38. Garrett BL. 2010. The substance of false confessions. Stanford Law Rev. 62:41051–119 [Google Scholar]
  39. Gifford DG. 1983. Meaningful reform of plea bargaining: the control of prosecutorial discretion. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 37:90–92 [Google Scholar]
  40. Gottfredson MR, Gottfredson DM. 1988. Decision Making in Criminal Justice 3 New York: Plenum [Google Scholar]
  41. Graham K. 2012. Crimes, widgets, and plea bargaining: an analysis of charge content, pleas, and trials. Calif. Law Rev. 100:6573–711 [Google Scholar]
  42. Hagan J. 1974. Parameters of criminal prosecution: an application of path analysis to a problem of criminal justice. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 65:4536–44 [Google Scholar]
  43. Hartley R, Maddan S, Spohn C. 2007. Concerning conceptualization and operationalization: sentencing data and the focal concerns perspective—a research note. South. J. Crim. Justice 4:158–78 [Google Scholar]
  44. Heumann M. 1978. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press [Google Scholar]
  45. Hogarth J. 1971. Sentencing as a Human Process Toronto, Can: Univ. Tor. Press [Google Scholar]
  46. Holleran D, Beichner D, Spohn C. 2010. Examining charging agreement between police and prosecutors in rape cases. Crime Delinq. 56:3385–413 [Google Scholar]
  47. Holmes MD, Daudistel HC, Farrell RA. 1987. Determinants of charge reductions and final dispositions in cases of burglary and robbery. J. Res. Crime Delinq. 24:3233–54 [Google Scholar]
  48. Innocence Proj 2015. The Causes of Wrongful Conviction http://www.innocenceproject.org/causes-wrong ful-conviction [Google Scholar]
  49. Jackson RH. 1940. The federal prosecutor Speech delivered at 2nd Annu. Conf. US Atty., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  50. Johnson BD. 2003. Racial and ethnic disparities in sentencing departures across modes of conviction. Criminology 41:449–90 [Google Scholar]
  51. Johnson BD. 2014. The Missing Link: Examining Prosecutorial Decision-Making across Federal District Courts Washington, DC: Natl. Inst. Justice. Doc. No. 245351. Award No. 2010-IJ-CX-0012 [Google Scholar]
  52. Jolls C, Sunstein CR, Thaler R. 1998. A behavioral approach to law and economics. Stanford Law Rev. 50:1471–550 [Google Scholar]
  53. Jones JB. 1978. Prosecutors and the disposition of criminal cases: an analysis of plea bargaining rates. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 69:3402–12 [Google Scholar]
  54. Kingsnorth R, Lopez J, Wentworth J, Cummings D. 1998. Adult sexual assault: the role of racial/ethnic composition in prosecution and sentencing. J. Crim. Justice 26:359–71 [Google Scholar]
  55. Kingsnorth R, MacIntosh RC. 2007. Intimate partner violence: the role of suspect gender in prosecutorial decision-making. Justice Q. 24:3460–95 [Google Scholar]
  56. Kingsnorth R, MacIntosh RC, Sutherland S. 2002. Criminal charge or probation violation? Prosecutorial discretion and implications for research in criminal court processing. Criminology 40:3553–77 [Google Scholar]
  57. Kingsnorth R, MacIntosh RC, Wentworth J. 1999. Sexual assault: the role of prior relationship and victim characteristics in case processing. Justice Q. 16:2275–302 [Google Scholar]
  58. Kutateladze BL, Andiloro NR, Johnson BD, Spohn C. 2014. Cumulative disadvantage: examining racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology 52:514–51 [Google Scholar]
  59. Kutateladze BL, Lawson VZ, Andiloro NR. 2015. Does evidence really matter? An exploratory analysis of the role of evidence in plea bargaining in felony drug cases. Law Hum. Behav. 39:5431–42 [Google Scholar]
  60. Kutateladze BL, Lynn V, Liang E. 2012. Do Race and Ethnicity Matter in Prosecution? A Review of Empirical Studies New York: Vera Inst. Justice [Google Scholar]
  61. LaFree GD. 1985. Adversarial and nonadversarial justice: a comparison of guilty pleas and trials. Criminology 23:2289–312 [Google Scholar]
  62. Landes WM. 1971. An economic analysis of the courts. J. Law Econ. 14:161–108 [Google Scholar]
  63. Langbein JH. 2003. The Origins of Adversary Criminal Trial Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press [Google Scholar]
  64. March JG, Simon HA. 1958. Organizations New York: Wiley [Google Scholar]
  65. McCannon BC. 2013. Prosecutor elections, mistakes, and appeals. J. Empir. Leg. Stud. 10:4696–714 [Google Scholar]
  66. McConville M, Mirsky CL. 2005. Jury Trials and Plea Bargaining: A True History Oxford, UK: Hart [Google Scholar]
  67. McDonald W. 1979. The prosecutor's domain. The Prosecutor WF McDonald 15–50 Beverly Hills, CA: Sage [Google Scholar]
  68. Miethe T. 1987. Charging and plea bargaining under determinant sentencing: an investigation of the hydraulic displacement of discretion. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 78:155–76 [Google Scholar]
  69. Miller HS, McDonald W, Cramer JA. 1978. Plea Bargaining in the United States Washington, DC: Georget. Univ. Law Cent http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR07775.v1 [Google Scholar]
  70. Missouri v. Frye 56 U.S. ___ 2012.
  71. Mnookin RH, Kornhauser L. 1979. Bargaining in the shadow of the law: the case of divorce. Yale Law J. 88:950–97 [Google Scholar]
  72. Moley R. 1928. The vanishing jury. South. Calif. Law Rev. 2:97–127 [Google Scholar]
  73. Moley R. 1929. The municipal court of Chicago. The Illinois Crime Survey JH Wigmore, pp. 393–419 Chicago: Ill. Assoc. Crim. Justice [Google Scholar]
  74. Nardulli PF, Eisenstein J, Flemming RB. 1988. The Tenor of Justice: Criminal Courts and the Guilty Plea Process Champaign: Univ. Ill. Press [Google Scholar]
  75. Nardulli PF, Flemming RB, Eisenstein J. 1985. Criminal courts and bureaucratic justice: concessions and consensus in the guilty plea process. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 76:41103–131 [Google Scholar]
  76. Piehl AM, Bushway SD. 2007. Measuring and explaining charge bargaining. J. Quant. Criminol. 23:105–25 [Google Scholar]
  77. Rachlinski JJ, Johnson SL, Wistrich AJ, Guthrie C. 2009. Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges?. Notre Dame Law Rev 84:31195–246 [Google Scholar]
  78. Rakoff JS. 2014. Why innocent people plead guilty. The New York Review of Books Nov. 20. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014/11/20/why-innocent-people-plead-guilty/ [Google Scholar]
  79. Reaves BA. 2013. Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009 Statistical Tables Washington, DC: US Dep. Justice, Bur. Justice Stat. [Google Scholar]
  80. Redlich AD. 2010. False confessions, false guilty pleas: similarities and differences. Interrogations and Confessions: Current Research, Practice, and Policy GD Lassiter, C Meissner 49–66 Washington, DC: APA Books [Google Scholar]
  81. Redlich AD, Summers A. 2012. Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent pleas: understanding plea inquiries. Psychol. Public Policy Law 18:626–43 [Google Scholar]
  82. Redlich AD, Summers A, Hoover S. 2010. Self-reported false confessions and false guilty pleas among offenders with mental illness. Law Hum. Behav. 34:79–90 [Google Scholar]
  83. Rehavi MM, Starr SB. 2014. Racial disparity in federal criminal sentences. J. Polit. Econ. 122:61320–54 [Google Scholar]
  84. Santobello v. New York 404 U.S. 260 1971.
  85. Schulhofer SJ. 1988. Criminal justice discretion as a regulatory system. J. Leg. Stud. 17:143–82 [Google Scholar]
  86. Schulhofer SJ. 1992. Plea bargaining as disaster. Yale Law J 101:81979–2010 [Google Scholar]
  87. Scott RE, Stuntz WJ. 1992. Plea bargaining as contract. Yale Law J 101:81909–68 [Google Scholar]
  88. Shermer LO, Johnson BD. 2010. Criminal prosecutions: examining prosecutorial discretion and charge reductions in U.S. federal district courts. Justice Q 27:3394–430 [Google Scholar]
  89. Smith BP. 2005. Plea bargaining and the eclipse of the jury. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 1:131–49 [Google Scholar]
  90. Smith DA. 1986. The plea bargaining controversy. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 77:949–68 [Google Scholar]
  91. Smith RJ, Levinson JD. 2012. Impact of implicit racial bias on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Seattle Univ. Law Rev. 35:795–826 [Google Scholar]
  92. Spears J, Spohn C. 1997. The effect of evidence factors and victim characteristics on prosecutors' charging decisions in sexual assault cases. Justice Q 14:3501–24 [Google Scholar]
  93. Spohn C, Beichner D, Davis-Frenzel E. 2001. Prosecutorial justifications for sexual assault case rejection: guarding the “gateway to justice.”. Soc. Probl. 48:2206–35 [Google Scholar]
  94. Spohn C, Gruhl J, Welch S. 1987. The impact of the ethnicity and gender of defendants on the decision to reject or dismiss felony charges. Criminology 35:175–90 [Google Scholar]
  95. Spohn C, Spears J. 1996. The effect of offender and victim characteristics on sexual assault case processing decisions. Justice Q. 13:4649–79 [Google Scholar]
  96. Spohn C, Tellis K. 2014. Policing and Prosecuting Sexual Assault: Inside the Criminal Justice System Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner [Google Scholar]
  97. Steffensmeier D, Ulmer J, Kramer J. 1998. Interaction of race, gender, and age in criminal sentencing: the punishment cost of being young, black, and male. Criminology 36:763–98 [Google Scholar]
  98. Stemen D, Escobar G. 2015. The effects of prosecutorial charging decisions on case outcomes. Presented at Am. Soc. Criminol. Meet., Washington, DC [Google Scholar]
  99. Stolzenberg L, D'Alessio SJ, Eitle D. 2013. Race and cumulative discrimination in the prosecution of criminal defendants. Race Justice 3:4275–99 [Google Scholar]
  100. Stuntz WJ. 2004. Plea bargaining and criminal law's disappearing shadow. Harvard Law Rev. 117:2548–69 [Google Scholar]
  101. Sudnow D. 1965. Normal crimes: sociological features of the penal code in a public defender office. Soc. Probl. 12:255–76 [Google Scholar]
  102. Sutton JR. 2013. Structural bias in the sentencing of felony defendants. Soc. Sci. Res. 42:51207–21 [Google Scholar]
  103. The Economist. 2014. The kings of the courtroom: how prosecutors came to dominate the criminal-justice system. The Economist Oct 4. http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21621799-how-prosecutors-came-dominate-criminal-justice-system-kings-courtroom [Google Scholar]
  104. Tversky A, Kahneman D. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185:41571124–31 [Google Scholar]
  105. Ulmer JT, Eisenstein J, Johnson BD. 2010. Trial penalties in federal sentencing: extra-guidelines factors and district variation. Justice Q. 27:4560–92 [Google Scholar]
  106. Ulmer JT, Johnson BD. 2004. Sentencing in context: a multilevel analysis. Criminology 42:137–78 [Google Scholar]
  107. United States v. Jackson 390 U.S. 570 1968.
  108. Vance SE, Oleson JC. 2013. Displaced discretion: the effects of sentencing guidelines on prosecutors' charge bargaining in the District of Columbia Superior Court. Crim. Justice Policy Rev. 25:3347–77 [Google Scholar]
  109. Vogel ME. 1999. The social origins of plea bargaining: conflict and the law in the process of state formation, 1830–1860. Law Soc. Rev. 33:1161–246 [Google Scholar]
  110. Vogel ME. 2005. Pleas bargaining, discretionary leniency and the making of political authority. Amic. Curiae 57:2–11 [Google Scholar]
  111. Wickersham Comm. (Natl. Comm. Law Obs. Enforc.) 1931. Prosecution Washington, DC: US Gov. Print. Off. [Google Scholar]
  112. Wooldredge JD. 1989. An aggregate-level examination of the caseload pressure hypothesis. J. Quant. Criminol. 5:3259–83 [Google Scholar]
  113. Wooldredge JD, Griffin T. 2005. Displaced discretion under Ohio sentencing guidelines. J. Crim. Justice 33:301–16 [Google Scholar]
  114. Wright R, Engen R. 2006. The effects of depth and distance in a criminal code on charging, sentencing, and prosecutor power. N.C. Law Rev. 84:61935–82 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084755
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110615-084755
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error