Take Home Message: There is some evidence that when prosecutors, judges and defense have more in common in terms of their background or demographics, they settle cases faster and with more plea bargains. Sometimes, though, ‘familiarity breeds contempt’, and lengthy dispositions by trial actually become more frequent.

Full report: C. Metcalfe (2016). “The Role of Courtroom Workgroups in Felony Case Dispositions: An Analysis of Workgroup Familiarity and Similarity.” Law and Society Review, 50 (3), pp. 637-673.

Link: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/lasr.12217/abstract . If you have trouble accessing the report Andy Davies may be able to help.

Sample: 911 cases in a Florida jurisdiction, gathered with the assistance of a public defender office from the period 2002-2010. All 411 cases that went to trial in these years were sampled, as well as a random sample of 500 plea cases from the same period (from a universe of over 30,000).

The Details: Theory suggests that when members of a ‘courtroom workgroup’ (the prosecutor, defender and judge) are either more similar to one another in demographic terms, or are simply more familiar with one another because they have worked together for some time, they are likely to settle cases more quickly and go to trial less often. Metcalfe tests that theory by looking at how often the players in a sample of disposed cases in a Florida jurisdiction had met previously, and how similar their demographics and backgrounds were.

The results are not exactly as expected. Where workgroup actors in general are more familiar – and specifically where prosecutors and defense attorneys have longer histories of facing each other – the likelihood of trial actually increases. Elsewhere, though, particularly when it comes to workgroup actors being more demographically similar (in terms, for example, of sex, race, educational background, work experience) plea bargains are indeed more likely. When it comes to the shared characteristics and histories of prosecutors and judges specifically, both similarity and familiarity between those particular courtroom actors made disposition by plea more likely.

The author interviewed local defenders, judges and prosecutors and found real animosity and ideological division among courtroom opponents, perhaps offering a different view into how workgroup member relationships develop over time. Is it possible that ‘familiarity breeds contempt’? Rather than becoming more comfortable with one another and efficient at disposing cases, might it be that the shared pasts of certain old attorneys in this one jurisdiction actually led to more, rather than less, adversarial behavior?

Responding to this ILS review of her work, Dr. Metcalfe wrote the following:

It is important to recognize that these findings are based on a subset of cases from one courthouse. By using a subset of cases, I could not capture all possible interactions between the actors. In focusing on one courthouse, the findings also cannot speak to potentially variant courtroom dynamics across courthouses. In this particular courthouse, the actors seemed to be ideologically different, but that may not be true in all situations, which is an interesting research question. I think the study of courtroom workgroups is a valuable avenue for further inquiry and some of these limitations can be remedied through continued collaboration between researchers and public defender offices.