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

在相同的正式法律和政策下运作的刑事法院往往会制定自己的规范和做法，根据案件的裁决地点，导致截然不同的司法结果。当正式的法律政策发生变化时，改革通常会由地方法院以不同的方式实施，有时会与政策目标不一致。本项目利用美国司法部（DOJ）最近在联邦刑事系统中实施的重大政策变化来研究不同的法院“社区”如何应对这些变化。具体来说，已经制定了新的政策，敦促检察官专注于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力度。虽然司法部的政策旨在在不同的联邦地区法院标准化起诉实践，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。该研究直接建立在PI之前由美国国家科学基金会资助的研究基础上，该研究使用定性现场方法和定量方法检查了联邦法院裁决策略的司法管辖区差异。该项目重新审视了相同的研究地点（4个地理和人口分布不同的联邦地区），以评估当前司法部的政策是否以及如何影响案件数量特征（包括被告人口统计）和裁决实践和结果，重点是如何将正式的自上而下的政策转化为本地化的、实地的法律行动。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假设：1)尽管回归旨在通过自上而下的命令控制地方做法的政策，但在实践中适应将是本地化的。在四种不同的做法中，地区之间的差异将继续很明显：病例选择；检控工作；认罪协议的条件和方式；以及正式的量刑实践。(2)在地区内，案件数量的人口构成、检控量刑工具的应用和量刑长度会随着时间的变化而变化，但地方审判规范会缓和这种变化。3)当前政策期（2017年5月开始）地方实践规范的变化程度将大于上一个政策期（2010-2017年），因为当前政策授权加大对被告的惩罚力度，并包括地方合规机制。该奖项反映了美国国家科学基金会的法定使命，并通过使用基金会的知识价值和更广泛的影响审查标准进行评估，被认为值得支持。

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.