NCJ Number
79221
Date Published
1980
Length
35 pages
Annotation
Decisionmaking uniformity and consistency are examined in the Kings County (Brooklyn), N.Y. district attorney's office and then compared with results from similar tests in prosecutors' offices in Wilmington, Del.; Salt Lake City, Utah; and New Orleans, La.
Abstract
A standard case set of 30 cases was issued to the assistants and lead prosecutors in each of the offices, producing 13 observations on each of the cases in Wilmington, 34 from New Orleans, 21 from Salt Lake City, and 282 from Brooklyn. Brooklyn was the focal point of the research, since the sample size was substantial and it had a rich bureaucratic structure. Each of the other offices was used primarily for benchmarking the Brooklyn data to determine what was high or low with respect to uniformity and consistency. Consistency is defined as the extent of agreement between the assistants and the policymaker, and uniformity is defined as the amount of agreement among the assistants independent of a comparison to the leader. Each case was evaluated by decisions to (1) assign an overall priority for prosecution, (2) accept or reject the case, (3) how best to dispose of the case (e.g., plead or trial), (4) determine the point in the system where it would exit, (5) estimate whether the charge would prevail or be reduced, and (6) decide whether the defendant should be incarcerated. Overall levels of agreement in decisionmaking were found to be high, with the highest levels of agreement in early decisions which determine the cases that enter the system. The analysis of the unit structure in Brooklyn shows that uniformity and consistency are related to the trial experience of the assistants. Uniformity and consistency were found to be greatest in the offices directed by a strong central policy, such as in the Brooklyn office. The Brooklyn office's structure and operations are described, and tabular data are included.