Gang-Related Homicide Charging Decisions: The Implementation of a Specialized Prosecution Unit in Los Angeles

Abstract

This study examines prosecutorial decisions to reject gang-related homicide charges. Focusing on a large, “traditional” gang jurisdiction—Los Angeles—the authors investigate the effect of victim, suspect, and incident characteristics on the likelihood of case rejection for 614 homicide suspects. The data were collected by the Los Angeles District Attorney’s Office to evaluate Operation Hardcore, a specialized prosecution unit initiated to address the complexities of prosecuting violent gang-related crimes. These data, which captured decisions made in one of the nation’s largest district attorney’s offices, provide a unique glimpse into how a jurisdiction addressed the growing problem of gang violence. Overall, the results of this study shed light on how prosecutors charge gang-related homicides and how multiple victim cases—which potentially attract more public attention—may influence such decisions. Moreover, the findings also have implications for specialized prosecution units, as they were found to reduce the likelihood of case rejection. Policy implications and directions for future research are offered.

Decoupling the Labeling Tradition

“…Offense severity and the number of offenses weighed heavily in the decision to refer a case to the juvenile court, regardless of individual characteristics and independent of gang status. These findings are consistent with a deep body of literature on system response and recidivism (e.g., Brownfield et al, 2001;Caudill et al, 2013Caudill et al, , 2017Huebner et al, 2007;Ozkan, 2016;Pyrooz et al, 2011;Thornberry et al, 1993;Trulson et al, 2005). Ultimately, a history of criminality facilitated referral to the juvenile court, much like the relationship between criminal history and recidivism.…”

“…For example, Caudill, Trulson, Marquart, and DeLisi (2017) discovered that confirmed gang affiliation had disproportionate influence on prosecutorial outcomes compared to suspected gang affiliation among juvenile offenders, but the inability to statistically test this disproportionate effect limits inference. The same holds true for other studies focused on the influence of gang affiliation (Brownfield et al, 2001;Caudill et al, 2013;Pyrooz et al, 2011). Miethe and McCorkle (1997), in their test of gang membership as a master status, stratified their sample by gang membership to assess the disproportionate influences of covariates on case outcomes (charges dismissed in Model 1 and prison sentences in Model 2).…”

Tracing Charge Trajectories: A Study of the Influence of Race in Charge Changes at Case Screening, Arraignment, and Disposition*

“…In a study of decision‐making among misdemeanor and felony domestic violence cases in and around Memphis, Tennessee, Henning and Feder () found African Americans and “other” minorities to be less likely to have their cases declined by prosecutors than White defendants (see also Wooldredge and Thistlewaite, ). Other researchers have found the race of the victim to influence initial screening decisions, with prosecutors generally more likely to reject a case at initial screening if it involves a non‐White than a White victim (Kingsnorth et al., ; Pyrooz, Wolfe, and Spohn, ; Sorensen and Wallace, ). Such disparities may reflect reduced focal concerns around prosecutorial reputation or perception of risk specifically for victims of color.…”

Examining the “Gang Penalty” in the Juvenile Justice System: A Focal Concerns Perspective

“…Guided by the focal concerns perspective, and previous research on race/ethnicity in juvenile sentencing (Bishop et al, 2010; Fader et al, 2014; Harris, 2008, 2009), the current study examines the effect of self-reported gang membership on sentencing outcomes for a sample of serious juvenile offenders. To date, little attention has been devoted to the investigation of gang membership in sentencing, especially for juvenile offenders (Pyrooz et al, 2011). In addition, studies that have explored this relationship either used a dichotomous variable (Cauffman et al, 2007) or a sample of adult offenders (Miethe & McCorkle, 1997).…”

“…These studies suggest probation reports are taken by judges at face value and may paint certain defendants as more sophisticated or less redeemable (Harris, 2009, p. 254; see also Bridges & Steen, 1998; Gaarder et al, 2004). Gang members are likely to be similarly stereotyped by probation reports (and therefore judges), but relatively little is known about how gang membership interacts with focal concerns in sentencing decisions regarding juvenile offenders (Miethe & McCorkle, 1997; Pyrooz et al, 2011; Zatz, 1985).…”