Factual guilt, perceived guilt, and race: How defense attorneys make plea recommendations in real-world circumstances

今天，美国绝大多数刑事案件（超过95%）都是通过辩诉交易解决的，辩诉交易是一种谈判，最终达成一致的案件解决方案，为国家和被告节省了漫长审判的时间和费用。但是，越来越多的免责声明和越来越多的文献指出，非正式和迅速的认罪程序存在令人不安的缺陷。如果我们要维护被告的基本权利和我们刑事司法系统的完整性，了解辩诉交易决定的基本机制，包括种族如何影响辩诉决定，是至关重要的。审查和确定辩护律师的作用-谁是现实的认罪决定的核心-并探讨如何现实世界的情况下影响他们的认罪建议将指导健全的辩诉交易政策的发展，并将支持从业人员在他们的追求正义。一系列的四项研究将隔离变量，经常发生在真实的世界的辩护律师和辩诉交易，并研究律师的预测准确性（即他们预测陪审团裁决的准确程度）和认罪建议。律师将审查一个假设的刑事案件档案，其中载有各种证据，并将被要求根据案件档案提出抗辩建议。模拟陪审员将观看模拟审判的相应视频，其中包含与参与律师观看的案件档案相同的证据。然而，律师案件档案的内容将被操纵，以反映现实世界的情况。第一项研究将操纵证据（指向有罪/无罪）和被告对有罪/无罪的断言，以更好地理解在辩护律师眼中哪个更重要：证据还是客户的断言。第二项研究将探讨如何直接迹象有罪或无罪，结合被告的有罪或无罪的主张影响认罪建议和律师的信念有罪的地位。第三项研究将探讨不完全查阅案卷如何影响认罪求情建议的问题。由于认罪决定往往是迅速作出的，有时间限制，本研究的目的是了解辩护律师如何决定是否建议认罪要约，而没有看到案件的所有事实。最后，第四项研究将探讨不可采纳的证据如何影响律师的认罪建议。这项研究将操纵存在的不可接受的证据，如犯罪历史或传闻证词的案件档案，分析如何律师，然后有区别地建议认罪。从这些研究的结果将有助于通知一个更细致入微的辩诉交易的研究模型比目前存在的发展，并将完善我们的理解，律师如何使辩诉建议时，面对的约束条件的认罪process.This奖项反映了NSF的法定使命，并已被认为是值得通过使用基金会的智力价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估的支持。

The vast majority of criminal cases in America today – upwards of 95% – are resolved through plea bargaining, a negotiation resulting in an agreed-upon resolution to the case, saving the State and the defendant the time and expense of a lengthy trial. But a growing number of exonerations and an expanding body of literature point to troubling flaws in the informal and swift plea process. Understanding the underlying mechanisms of plea-bargaining decisions, including how race affects plea decisions, is critical if we are to preserve the fundamental rights of defendants and the integrity of our criminal justice system. Examining and identifying the role of defense attorneys – who are realistically at the heart of the plea decisions – and exploring how real-world circumstances affect their plea recommendations will guide the development of sound plea bargaining policies and will support practitioners in their pursuit of justice.A series of four studies will isolate variables that frequently occur in the real world of defense attorneys and plea bargaining, and study attorneys’ predictive accuracy (i.e. how accurately they predict jury verdicts) and plea recommendations. Attorneys will review a hypothetical criminal case file containing various pieces of evidence and will be asked to make plea recommendations based on the case file. Mock jurors will view a corresponding video of a mock trial containing the same evidence as the case file viewed by participating attorneys. However, the contents of the attorney case file will be manipulated to reflect real-world scenarios. The first study will manipulate evidence (pointing to guilt/innocence) and the defendant’s assertion of guilt/innocence, to better understand which carries more weight in the eyes of a defense attorney: evidence or a client’s assertion. The second study will examine how direct indications of guilt or innocence, in conjunction with a defendant’s assertion of guilt or innocence affects plea recommendations and attorneys’ beliefs about guilt status. The third study will address the question of how incomplete access to case files affects plea recommendations. Since plea decisions are often made quickly, with a time limit, this study will aim to understand how defense attorneys decide whether to recommend a plea offer without having seen all the facts of a case. Finally, the fourth study will explore how inadmissible evidence influences attorneys’ plea recommendations. This study will manipulate the presence of inadmissible evidence such as criminal history or hearsay testimony in case files to analyze how attorneys then differentially recommend pleas. Results from these studies will help inform the development of a more nuanced plea-bargaining research model than currently exists and will refine our understanding of how attorneys make plea recommendation when faced with the constraints of the plea process.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.