An Examination of the Influence of Strength of Evidence Variables in the Prosecution’s Decision to Dismiss Driving While Intoxicated Cases

Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Prosecution

“… a. Minority disadvantage: Odds ratios > 1; minority advantage: Odds ratios < 1. Five studies (Crutchfield, Weis, Engen, & Gainey, 1995; Franklin, 2010a; Kingsnorth & MacIntosh, 2007; McCoy, Salinas, Walker, & Hignite, 2012; Romain & Freiburger, 2013) controlled for more than one racial/ethnic dummy in the same regression model, two of which (Crutchfield et al, 1995; McCoy et al, 2012) reported a difference in statistical significance across racial/ethnic dummies. Significance following an adjustment by averaging effect sizes of racial/ethnic dummies was determined by a comparison between the ratio of the b coefficient to its standard error and 1.96 (i.e., p = .05). …”

“…The same is true of evidentiary strength. Not only has this factor helped prosecutors determine whether to pursue a case, but it has also affected case dismissal prior to trial (Albonetti, 1987; Free, 2005; McCoy etal., 2012). Although this meta-analysis had precluded studies without multivariate analysis to control for crime severity or criminal history, two effect sizes were still associated with the control, not for both, but only for one of these two legal factors.…”

“…Therefore, convictability that reflects efficiency, effectiveness, and certainty from the organizational aspect becomes an important consideration in the prosecution process (Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Hartley etal., 2007; Ulmer etal., 2007). The primary factor for the organizational aspect of practical considerations is the strength of evidence, which also serves as a dominant legal factor (Albonetti, 1987; McCoy, Salinas, Walker, & Hignite, 2012; but see Spohn & Spears, 1997). In addition, there are extralegal factors falling within the individual aspect of practical considerations, such as victim characteristics and victim–offender relationships (see Beichner & Spohn, 2005; Kingsnorth, MacIntosh, & Wentworth, 1999; Spears & Spohn, 1997; Spohn etal., 2001; Spohn & Holleran, 2001).…”

Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention, conviction, and sentencing*

“…Moreover, single‐locale studies also enable us to examine local practices in a more contextualized manner and identify general mechanisms of inequality that could be applied to other places (Lynch et al., 2013). For these reasons, single‐jurisdiction studies have been increasingly used in sentencing research (Johnson & Larroulet, 2019; King & Johnson, 2016; Kutateladze, 2018; Kutateladze et al., 2016; Leiber & Blowers, 2003; McCoy et al., 2012; Metcalfe & Chiricos, 2018; Owens et al., 2017; Wooldredge et al., 2016). Our findings about criminal history (King;, 2019; Owens et al., 2017), pretrial detention (Martinez et al., 2019; Schlesinger, 2007), charging (Owens et al., 2017; Rehavi & Starr, 2014), and economic marginalization (Mustard, 2001) explaining inequality in court outcomes comport with prior studies.…”

“…Charging decisions account for a large amount of racial inequality in the system (Engen, 2009), often exerting a stronger impact on sentencing outcomes than sentencing decisions themselves (Wright & Engen, 2006). Not only are people of color less likely to have their case dropped (Leiber & Blowers, 2003; McCoy, Salinas, Walker, & Hignite, 2012; Stemen & Escobar, 2018) or to have their charges reduced (Farnworth & Teske, 1995; Metcalfe & Chiricos, 2018; Shermer & Johnson, 2010; Stemen & Escobar, 2018), but they also “get less of a value for their plea” (Metcalfe & Chiricos, 2018, p. 245). Recent analyses of charging trajectories have found that cases involving Black and Latino people involve fewer charge reductions at multiple stages (Johnson & Larroulet, 2019) and cumulatively across the entire court process (Kutateladze, 2018).…”