This study builds upon the theory of local legal cultural and the organizational analysis of criminal courts by considering how these factors work together to enhance courtroom efficiency. This research explores the relationship among several elements of criminal courts (management tools, legal culture, and institutional characteristics such as vertical prosecution) and their impact on courtroom efficiency and the timely administration of justice. It is unclear how well existing theories account for the complexity of crimes involving young victims, such as in child sexual assault cases. This project will examine whether current models of organizational court culture are robust vis-Ã -vis these cases, or alternatively, whether the theoretical models need to be refined.
To address these research questions, this project will collect and analyze qualitative and quantitative data from multiple sources including: an in-depth case study of three Oregon counties using an online survey administered to key stakeholders, site visits to conduct interviews with prosecutors, judges, and court administrators, and a review of relevant statutes and laws. The research team will also gather retrospective data on criminal justice processing of sexual crimes against children for the past two years from three Oregon District Attorney's Offices and conduct interviews with prosecutors on a sample of cases that took more than two years to be criminally resolved.
Research on this topic is essential for developing comprehensive theoretical models to enhance the administration of justice. The results will: 1) identify a theoretical framework for understanding differences in case resolution time; 2) establish and promote effective models of prosecution; and 3) improve practice guidelines for prosecutors. By collecting data from key decision-makers in the court system, this study will have the broader impact of contributing to the enhanced comprehension of the nuances of legal institutions and criminal processing in terms of both theory and practice.
July 2013 Wendy A. Walsh and Lisa M. Jones* Crimes against Children Research Center, University of New Hampshire Introduction Understanding how different courts and other key stakeholders handle the processing of criminal cases is a fundamental aspect of efficient legal institutions. Yet, few studies have examined whether these theories extend to understanding delays and court timeframes in particularly complex cases, such as those involving sexual crimes against children. Thus, the purpose of this study was to examine the criminal case processing of child sexual abuse cases. Data was collected in three counties from Oregon. These data included 795 felony child sexual abuse cases referred for prosecution during 2007 and 2008, 55 online surveys completed by criminal justice professionals, and 23 in-depth interviews with criminal justice professionals. Definitions Measures of criminal justice efficiency included criminal resolution time and trial date certainty[1]. Criminal resolution time is defined as the time between arraignment (charging) and final case outcome. The Oregon time standard for criminal felony cases states that 90% of cases should be concluded within 120 days from arraignment[2]. Trial date certainty is defined as the time between the date the trial is scheduled and the date of the final case outcome. This is important to consider because sometimes the scheduling of a trial is used to help negotiate a plea bargain and move the case to a resolution. Findings Similarities across counties Professionals in all three counties mentioned that these cases are difficult cases emotionally for all those involved, including defendants who may need additional time to process the severity of the charges against them. Professionals in all three counties mentioned the lengthy sentences that child sexual abuse crimes have elongates the process for plea negotiations. Most child sexual abuse cases were resolved by a plea bargain (45% to 66%) or were declined or dismissed (10% to 42%). A minority of cases were convicted at trial (6% to 17%) or acquitted at trial (1% to 2%). Differences across counties The criminal resolution time differed dramatically by county. In county 1, 38% were resolved within the target timeframe of 4 months, in county 2, 16% and in county 3, 46% were resolved within this timeframe (see Figure 1). There was more variation in resolution time for child sexual abuse compared to felonies in general across counties. A smaller percentage of child sexual abuse cases were resolved within the target timeframe of 4 months compared to all felonies (see Figure 2). Trial date certainty varied by county. In county 1, 37% of cases with a trial date were resolved by the day of the trial. This suggests that this county is using the scheduling of the trial to help obtain a plea bargain. In contrast, in county 2, 1% were resolved by the trial and in county 3, 20% were resolved by the trial. One county promoted the early provision of discovery to defense, had early case management hearings to identify what an appropriate solution for the case might be, and had judges that kept the case moving. This collaborative project helped to strengthen the link between a university-based research center, a policy center, the National Center for State Courts, two child abuse assessment centers, and three court systems. Conclusions Counties varied in the timeliness of child sexual abuse case resolution, yet, organizational culture did not seem to impact the timeliness of resolution. It was clear, however, that participants in one county were frustrated with the lack of genial relationships and the way work got done. It is likely that additional factors impact the efficient and effective processing of these complex cases. In this era of limited state funding, it is critically important to better understand how to develop comprehensive theoretical models to enhance the administration of justice. * This Project Outcomes Report for the General Public is displayed as submitted by the Principal Investigator for this award. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this Report are those of the PI and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation: NSF has not approved or endorsed its content. This material is based upon work supported by the National Science Foundation, Law and Social Science Program, under Grant Number 0961426. For more information about this project, please contact the PI, Dr. Wendy A. Walsh, (603-862-1026, wendy.walsh@unh.edu) or the Co-PI, Dr. Lisa M. Jones, (603-862-2515, lisa.jones@unh.edu) at the Crimes against Children Research Center at the University of New Hampshire. www.unh.edu/ccrc/ [1] www.courtexcellence.com/~/media/microsites/files/icce/global%20measures_v3_11_2012.ashx [2] www.ncsc.org/Information-and-Resources/High-Performance-Courts/Case-Processing-Time-Standards/CPTS-States/Oregon.aspx
