Case Adjudication as Local Practice: A Follow-up Study using Multiple Methods

根据相同的正式法律和政策运作的刑事法院往往会制定自己的规范和做法，从而根据案件的裁决情况产生截然不同的司法结果。当正式的法律的政策发生变化时，地方法院行为者通常以不同的方式实施改革，有时与政策目标不一致。本项目利用美国司法部（DOJ）最近对联邦刑事系统实施的重大政策变化，研究不同的法院“社区”如何应对这些变化。具体来说，已经制定了新的政策，敦促检察官关注某些类型的联邦犯罪，并要求全国各地的检察官最大限度地提高潜在的惩罚。虽然司法部的政策旨在使不同的联邦地区法院的检察实践标准化，但先前的研究表明，地方法院在如何将这些指令转化为行动方面会有所不同。 这项研究直接建立在PI以前的NSF资助的研究，研究司法管辖区的差异，在联邦法院的裁决策略，使用定性的实地方法和定量方法。该项目重新访问相同的研究地点（4地理和人口不同的联邦区），以评估目前的司法部政策是否以及如何影响案件量的特点（包括被告人口）和裁决的做法和结果，重点是如何正式的自上而下的政策转化为本地化，在地面上的法律的行动。通过访谈、观察和来自联邦法院的行政数据，该项目检验了三个相关的假设：1）尽管回归到旨在通过自上而下的授权来控制地方实践的政策，但在实践中，适应将是地方性的。地区之间的差异将继续明显体现在四套不同的做法上：案件选择;检察官指控做法;认罪协议的条款和模式;以及正式的判刑做法。2)在地区内，人口构成的案件量，检察机关控制的量刑工具的应用，和刑期将改变作为一个功能的时间段，但当地的裁决规范将缓和这种变化。3)地方实践规范的变化程度在当前政策期内会更大（5月开始，2017年）比上一届（2010-2017年）因为现行政策授权加大对被告的惩罚力度，并包括当地的合规机制。该奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并通过利用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响进行评估，被认为值得支持审查标准。

Criminal courts that operate under the same formal law and policy often develop their own norms and practices, resulting in very different kinds of justice outcomes depending upon where a case is adjudicated. And when formal legal policies change, the reforms generally get implemented in distinct and divergent ways by local court actors, sometimes in ways inconsistent with policy goals. This project capitalizes upon recent major policy changes imposed in the federal criminal system by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) to examine how different court "communities" have responded to the changes. Specifically, new policies have been developed urging prosecutors to focus on certain kinds of federal crimes, and that require prosecutors across the country to maximize the potential punishment. While the DOJ policies aim for standardized prosecutorial practices across the diverse federal district courts, prior research suggests that local courts will vary in how they translate these directives into action. The study builds directly upon the PI's previous NSF-funded research that examined jurisdictional differences in adjudication strategies in federal court, using both qualitative field methods and quantitative methods. The project revisits the same research sites (4 geographically and demographically diverse federal districts) to assess whether and how the current DOJ policy impacts caseload characteristics (including defendant demography) and adjudication practices and outcomes, with a focus on how formal top-down policy is translated into localized, on-the-ground legal action. Using interviews, observations, and administrative data from the federal courts, the project tests three related hypotheses: 1) Despite the return to policies that aim to control local practices through top-down mandates, adaptations will be localized in practice. Between-district variations will continue to be evident in four distinct sets of practices: case selection; prosecutorial charging practices; terms and modes of plea agreements; and formal sentencing practices. 2) Within-district, demographic composition of the caseload, the application of prosecutorial-controlled sentencing tools, and sentence lengths will change as a function of temporal period, but local adjudication norms will temper such change. 3) The degree of change in local practice norms will be greater in the current policy period (beginning May, 2017) than the previous one (2010-2017) because the current policy authorizes increased punishment for defendants and includes local compliance mechanisms.This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.