The Plea Bargaining Process From the Defendant's Perspective: A Field Investigation

Bordens, Kenneth S; Bassett, John Spencer

doi:10.1207/s15324834basp0602_1

Cited by 37 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In sum, this empirical research has suggested that potential sentence is an important factor in the plea bargaining process, when applied to mock (Gregory, Mowen, & Linder, 1978;McAllister & Bregman, 1986a) and actual criminal defendants (Bordens & Bassett, 1985), but not to mock criminal defense attorneys (McAllister & Bregman, 1986a). The research has also more uniformly suggested that probability of conviction (using differing percentages) is an important consideration to mock guilty defendants (Bordens, 1984), mock defendants (McAllister & Bregman, 1986a), and mock defense attorneys (McAllister & Bregman, 1986b).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference

Kramer

Wolbransky

Heilbrun

2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although most criminal cases are disposed of through the process of plea bargaining, little research has focused on this process, and that research has focused on two variables: probability of conviction and potential sentence. This study examined the plea bargaining process from the perspective of the criminal defense attorney and expands prior research by including a third variable: defendant preference regarding plea. Attorney participants (N = 186) responded to a survey containing a vignette presented in a 2 x 2 x 2 between-subjects design, in which there was systematic manipulation of the following three variables in the context of criminal litigation: likelihood of conviction based on the strength of evidence, defendant preference regarding plea, and potential sentence if convicted. All of these variables were considered important to criminal defense attorneys, and how these variables significantly interacted with each other is explained. We discuss these findings in light of past research and theory that suggested attorneys make plea recommendations according only to probability of conviction and potential sentence, and we discuss implications and directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 83%

Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference

Kramer

Wolbransky

Heilbrun

2007

Behavioral Sci & The Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In another study, Bordens and Bassett (1985) interviewed 67 convicted (adult) defendants who had pled guilty. 2 Although their main focus was to examine reasons why defendants pled guilty, the authors also examined what they called "knowledge of plea information."…”

Section: Knowing and Intelligent Plea Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent pleas: Understanding the plea inquiry.

Redlich

Summers

2012

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges When defendants plead guilty, they are asked a series of questions (the plea inquiry) in open court to ascertain whether pleas are made knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily. There is a wealth of research on adjudicative competence, but little to none on the plea inquiry. Whereas competence is relevant to whether one has the ability to make knowing, intelligent, and voluntary decisions, the plea inquiry is relevant to whether one actually made such a decision. In the present study, 99 adult defendants who just pled guilty were interviewed and tested about aspects of the plea process. We found that whereas almost all defendants had little or no adjudicative competence deficits and claimed to have made a knowing plea decision, plea comprehension was generally poor. Two thirds of our sample was correct on less than 60% of questions.

show abstract

“…Finalement, certains éléments liés à l'accusé peuvent aussi avoir des conséquences sur les négociations. Les antécédents criminels de l'accusé (Frenzel et Ball, 2007), son intention de plaider coupable (Tor, GazalAyal et Garcia, 2010), ses remords (Bordens et Bassett, 1985), son manque de ressources fi nancières pour aller en procès (Poirier, 1987) ou son éventuelle détention provisoire (Bibas, 2004) sont autant d'éléments qui peuvent avoir une infl uence sur la décision de plaider coupable.…”

Section: Les Caractéristiques Des Causes Ou Des Accusésunclassified

“…Finalement, si d'autres recherches ont cherché à comprendre quels éléments d'une cause pouvaient infl uencer la décision d'un accusé de plaider coupable ou non (Bordens et Bassett, 1985 ;Frenzel et Ball, 2007), peu se sont intéressées à leur incidence sur les rapports de force entre les avocats. De plus, l'impact est souvent mesuré de manière quantitative, si bien qu'on ne comprend pas toujours comment ces éléments peuvent infl uencer les négociations.…”

Section: Problématiqueunclassified

Les rapports de force lors des négociations des plaidoyers de culpabilité. Analyse du point de vue des avocats de la défense

Euvrard

Leclerc

2015

crimino

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Le présent article cherche à décrire et à comprendre les rapports de force entre les avocats de la défense et les procureurs de la Couronne lors des négociations des plaidoyers de culpabilité. S’appuyant sur la théorie de l’acteur stratégique (Crozier et Friedberg, 1977) et sur la manière dont le pouvoir et l’incertitude régulent les interactions, il s’intéresse à la manière dont certaines caractéristiques des causes criminelles sont utilisées par les avocats de la défense dans leurs rapports de force avec les procureurs lors de ces négociations. À la suite d’entrevues semi-dirigées menées auprès de douze avocats de la défense exerçant au palais de justice de Montréal, il est apparu que quatre éléments (la gravité et le type de crime, le nombre de chefs d’accusation, le temps écoulé depuis le début des procédures, la médiatisation d’une cause) pouvaient avoir des effets différents sur leurs rapports de force avec les procureurs de la Couronne. L’article met en évidence la manière dont les rapports de force peuvent varier selon certains éléments de la cause et comment ces éléments sont utilisés et perçus différemment par les avocats.This article aims to describe and understand the balance of power between criminal defence lawyers and public prosecutors during plea bargaining. Based on the strategic actor theory (Crozier & Friedberg, 1977), which proposes that power and uncertainty regulate the interactions, the article focuses on how several elements related to the criminal case are used by lawyers to shift the balance of power during those negotiations. Based on semi-structured interviews with twelve criminal defence lawyers working at the Montreal courthouse, it appears that four elements (class and type of offence, number of charges, time elapsed since the criminal justice process was started, media coverage) have different effects on the balance of power between lawyers and prosecutors. This article shows how the balance of power can shift depending on different elements related to the case and how these elements are used and perceived differently by lawyers.Este artículo busca describir y entender las relaciones de poder entre los abogados de la defensa y los procuradores de la Corona, durante las negociaciones de las declaraciones de culpabilidad. Apoyándose en la teoría del actor estratégico (Crozier y Friedberg, 1977) y en la manera en la que el poder y la incertidumbre regulan las interacciones, el artículo se interesa por la forma en la que ciertas características de las causas penales son utilizadas por los abogados de la defensa en sus relaciones de poder con los procuradores durante dichas negociaciones. Después de realizar entrevistas semi-directivas con doce abogados de la defensa, quienes ejercen en el Palacio de Justicia de Montreal, encontramos que cuatro elementos (la gravedad y el tipo de crimen, el número de cargos, el tiempo transcurrido desde el inicio del proceso, la mediatización de la causa), pueden tener efectos diferentes sobre sus relaciones de poder con los procuradores de la corona. ...

show abstract

The Plea Bargaining Process From the Defendant's Perspective: A Field Investigation

Cited by 37 publications

References 5 publications

Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference

Plea bargaining recommendations by criminal defense attorneys: evidence strength, potential sentence, and defendant preference

Voluntary, knowing, and intelligent pleas: Understanding the plea inquiry.

Les rapports de force lors des négociations des plaidoyers de culpabilité. Analyse du point de vue des avocats de la défense

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About