Bargaining in the "shadow of the trial," which hinges on the expectations of trial outcomes, is the primary theory used by noncriminologists to explain variation in the plea discount given to defendants who plead guilty. This study develops a formal mathematical representation of the theory and then presents an empirical test of the theory using an innovative online survey with responses to a hypothetical case from 1,585 prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. The key outcomes are the probability that the defendant will be convicted at trial, the sentence for the defendant if convicted, and the best plea that the respondent would accept or offer. Variation in the outcomes is created through experimental variation in the information presented to the respondents. Structural regression models are estimated to fit the formal theoretical models, and the instrumental variables method is used to correct for measurement error in the estimate for probability of conviction. The data support the basic shadow model, with minor modifications, for only prosecutors and defense attorneys. Controlling for the characteristics of the individual actors and their jurisdictions adds explanatory value to the model, although these control variables did not affect the key coefficients from the shadow model.Defendants who plead guilty usually receive substantially shorter sentences than observably equivalent people convicted at trial. 1 The implication is that defendants receive a discount for pleading guilty or, alternatively, a penalty for going to trial. 2 The

Thirty-three different electrocardiographic criteria for left ventricular hypertrophy have been evaluated in 360 autopsied hearts utilizing a chamber dissection technic. One hundred and sixty hearts had left ventricular hypertrophy, and 200 hearts did not (146 of these were normal, and 54 had right ventricular hypertrophy).The following five electrocardiographic criteria had a sensitivity of 56% but 10.5% to 14.5% false positives: Svi or Sv2 +RV5 '-35 mm, SV +±Rv5 or RV6 > 30 mm, Sv, or SV2 + Rv5 or RV6 > 35 mm, SV2 + RV4 or Rv5 > 35 mm, R + S > 40 mm. A point-score system employing a combination of criteria had a sensitivity of 54%, but lowered the false positives to 3%. The best limb-lead criterion was R aVL > 7.5 which had a sensitivity of 22.5% with only 3.5% false positives. The following criteria had no false positives, but the highest sensitivity was 19%: Svl, 24 mm, R aVL> 11 mm, RI + SI,, > 25 mm, RI > 13 mm, R aVL > 12 mm, RI > 15 mm, R aVL > 13 mm, and S aVR > 14 mm. Overall the precordial lead criteria were considerably more sensitive but less specific than the limb lead criteria. Since only six of the 200 hearts without left ventricular hypertrophy were in persons less than 30 years of age, this is not the major explanation for the high incidence of false positives in the more sensitive voltage criteria. The problems of using voltage criteria alone and the need for new criteria and approaches to the electrocardiographic diagnosis of left ventricular hypertrophy are discussed.

No abstract

As the discovery of wrongful convictions grows, so does concern in the legal community and public sphere about actual innocence. Though research on miscarriages of justice has grown tremendously, most has focused on the factors contributing to wrongful convictions, with relatively little attention paid to the post-release struggles of exonerees. Specifically, social scientists have not yet examined policies designed to assist the exonerated in their return to society. This study provides a content analysis of existing compensation statutes for the wrongly convicted. Results show that just more than half of American states have compensation statutes for exonerees, and the assistance offered varies tremendously from state to state. Assessing current statutes in comparison to a model standard indicates that whereas some jurisdictions provide fairly comprehensive packages, others offer little in the way of reentry assistance. The importance of such statutes and implications for the wrongly convicted are discussed.Robert J. Norris (2012) "Assessing Compensation Statutes For The Wrongly Convicted"