Criminal Justice Policy Review

Moore, Janet; Davies, Andrew L. B.

doi: 10.1177/0887403420921228pmid: N/A

This special issue focuses on interdisciplinary research in public defense. Seven papers represent a diverse group of scholars in an understudied field. Two overarching themes emerge. The first theme, “System Interventions: Evaluating Programs and Identifying Opportunities,” includes three studies of innovative policies and practices. Two evaluate new resource injections that support, respectively, social work-initiated holistic defense and counsel at first appearance. The third examines state sentencing schemes to identify opportunities for emphasizing defendant assets instead of deficits. The second theme, “Understanding Decision Makers,” includes four papers drawing on qualitative data regarding juvenile resentencing and reentry, defendant views of attorney–client communication, defender motivations for remaining in the profession, and manager perspectives on likely effects of caseload reductions. As a collection, these papers bridge gaps between theory and practice, offer new insight into public defense as a critical component of criminal legal systems, and identify new avenues for future research.

Harris, Heather M.

doi: 10.1177/0887403420916228pmid: N/A

Holistic defense is a model of public defense rooted in the early 20th century recognition that lawyers and social workers should cooperate to advocate with and for individuals and communities in need. Prior work on holistic defense highlighted its potential to transform the lives of public defender clients by transforming the legal practice of attorneys. Comparatively, social workers’ roles in these transformations have been neglected. Yet many holistic defense programs begin by integrating social workers onto legal teams. In this article, I describe and evaluate a social work centric holistic defense model piloted in Santa Barbara, California. My research supports recent findings that holistic defense improves case outcomes and substantially reduces incarceration without negatively affecting public safety. I discuss my results in the context of prior research and the potential for holistic defense to reform criminal justice. I then make recommendations for the design of future holistic defense evaluations.

Worden, Alissa Pollitz; Shteynberg, Reveka V.; Morgan, Kirstin A.; Davies, Andrew L. B.

doi: 10.1177/0887403419873018pmid: N/A

This article examines the impact of early provision of counsel on judges’ pretrial release and bail decisions in two rural counties in upstate New York, in cases involving felony charges. This study builds upon previously reported research on misdemeanor cases. We note that although the stakes are higher in felony cases, few studies have investigated the dynamics of first appearance decisions at either level. We investigate the hypotheses that when defendants are represented by attorneys at their first appearances in court, (a) judges are more inclined to release on recognizance or under supervision, (b) judges impose less restrictive bail amounts, and (c) as a consequence, defendants spend less time detained prior to disposition. We find mixed support for these hypotheses, although some evidence that counsel at first appearance (CAFA) produces the expected outcomes. We conclude that the implementation of programs intended to ensure CAFA may be tempered by courthouse cultures, and that future research on court reform should include the study of rural jurisdictions.

Vartkessian, Elizabeth S.

doi: 10.1177/0887403419866887pmid: N/A

Mitigation evidence consists of information about an accused person that is typically used to advocate for a less severe sentence. Such evidence most frequently consists of information related to the crime and personal factors that can be separated into two broad categories: deficits and assets-based mitigation. This article focuses on the importance of assets-based mitigation in sentencing and evaluates if and how state sentencing procedures contemplate and allow for consideration of such evidence. A content analysis of available state sentencing procedures reveals that states tend to circumscribe mitigation to factors related to the crime or deficits, but largely neglect to give a vehicle to consider assets-based mitigation, which should play a central role in achieving just outcomes. This article therefore argues for reform to sentencing laws to better accommodate assets-based mitigation by including information related to the defendant’s capacity for growth, self-improvement, and redemption.

Hussemann, Jeanette; Siegel, Jonah

doi: 10.1177/0887403419871601pmid: N/A

In 2012, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Miller v. Alabama that mandatory sentences of life without the possibility of parole (LWOP) for youth are unconstitutional. In 2016, the Court held in Montgomery v. Louisiana that the ruling in Miller should be applied retroactively. Drawing from qualitative interviews with justice actors, and individuals who were sentenced to LWOP as juveniles and paroled, this article examines the implementation of Miller-Montgomery in Michigan, the factors that influence decisions to release juvenile lifers, and their reentry process. In doing so, we focus specific attention to the role of publicly appointed defense attorneys and the application of holistic defense practices to support Montgomery case mitigation and juvenile lifer reentry. Findings indicate that institutional disciplinary and programming records, emotional wellness, statements by victims’ family members, political considerations, and reentry plans are key considerations when deciding whether a juvenile lifer should be eligible for parole.

Moore, Janet; Plano Clark, Vicki L.; Foote, Lori A.; Dariotis, Jacinda K.

doi: 10.1177/0887403419861672pmid: N/A

This article presents a qualitative research approach to exploring attorney–client communication in an urban public defense system. The study drew upon procedural justice theory (PJT), which emphasizes relationships between satisfaction with system procedures and compliance with system demands. Interpretive analysis of interview data from 22 public defense clients revealed four major themes. PJT accounted well for three themes of communication time, type, and content, highlighting relationships between prompt, iterative, complete communication, and client satisfaction. The fourth theme involved clients exercising agency, often due to dissatisfaction with attorney communication. This theme was better accommodated by legal consciousness theory, which emphasizes that diverse experiences with law include manipulation and opposition alongside compliance. Implications for policy and research are discussed.

Baćak, Valerio; Lageson, Sarah E.; Powell, Kathleen

doi: 10.1177/0887403419862317pmid: N/A

In this article, we ask why public defenders remain on the job despite a number of unique and testing work-related challenges. To answer this question, we analyze original data collected through 87 semistructured interviews with public defenders from government, nonprofit, and appointed counsel systems across the United States. Participants explicated a set of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations salient to their decision to remain in public defense: interacting with clients, defending the Constitution, fighting social inequality, pursuing personal values, appreciating camaraderie with colleagues, and earning public sector benefits. We discuss how our findings relate to prior research, identify directions for future studies, and tentatively engage policy implications.

Davies, Andrew L. B.; Lopes, Giza; Clark, Alyssa

doi: 10.1177/0887403419890650pmid: N/A

Litigation in New York State has resulted in the allocation of substantial new funding to limit indigent defense caseloads and improve representation provided to criminal defendants. Funding injections have rarely been studied in defense, however, so it is not clear what will be the effects of the new resources. Defense critics expect their impact to be transformative, but empirical scholarship is more pessimistic. We sort between these perspectives using exploratory interviews with the individuals most critical to the planned reforms: executive-level chief public defenders. Conceptualizing defense service quality in terms of “public value,” we find points of deviation from both the optimistic and pessimistic accounts. New York is a “deviant case,” we argue, which can be used to break new theoretical and empirical ground around the question of how resources impact defense service quality.