Empirical Legal Studies

Data on Prosecutorial Discretion By Gender

While a robust judicial outcomes research literature continues to mature and evolve, a critical pre-judicial outcome stage--the exercise of prosecutorial discretion--remains relatively understudied. Understanding the prosecutor's role is crucial as they "exercise unfettered decision-making authority throughout criminal cases by selecting whom to charge, which charges to bring, and what plea bargains to accept." While prosecturial discretion increasingly garners critical public attention, scholarly attention remains hamstrung by a paucity of helpful, systematic data.

In a recent paper, Gender Favoritism Among Criminal Prosecutors, Stephanie Holmes Didwania (Wisconsin) makes some intriguing headway by exploring individualized evidence about prosecutorial decision-making with the benefit of data from more than 130,000 federal criminal defendants sentenced from 2002 through 2016.

The paper's individualized line prosecutor-level data are, of course, key, and the data set is the product of two separate data sources: U.S. Sentencing Commission data (for the defendants) and the Executive Office for United States Attorneys (EOUSA) that regularly publishes case-level data from the 93 USAOs located throughout the United States. These data originate from the Legal Information Office Network System (LIONS), which is the computer program that the EOUSA uses to track and manage case loads. After employing various filters, what emerged includes data on "131,207 defendants sentenced in 63 of the 94 federal district courts in the United States, comprising 172 unique courthouses, 1,498 unique prosecutors, and 1,589 unique courthouse-prosecutor combinations."

Despite the granular data, the paper's empirical execution is not without important limitations. One limiting factor is that line prosecutors are not randomly assigned to cases. Another is that the defendant's underlying criminal conduct is not observable to the researcher. As this paper explores gender-based in-group favoritism, the non-random case assignment is important as "cases in which prosecutors and defendants match on gender are systematically different from those in which prosecutor and defendant mismatch."

Limitations aside, the paper's key findings include some intriguing gender-based differences. While the paper finds that male and female prosecutors exhibit small and statistically insignificant differences in their treatment of defendants overall, evidence of relative leniency towards defendants of their own gender exists. And for the defendants, such gender-based in-group favoritism is not inconsequential. "The leniency associated with gender-matching ultimately translates into significantly lower sentences: a defendant can expect to earn a roughly five-month shorter sentence when their prosecutor is their own gender compared to when their prosecutor is the opposite gender, which represents a roughly eight percent reduction in sentence length at the mean." The paper's abstract follows.

"Prosecutors enjoy wide discretion in the decisions they make but are largely unstudied by quantitative empirical scholars. This paper explores gender bias in prosecutorial decision-making. I find that male and female prosecutors exhibit small and statistically insignificant differences in their treatment of defendants overall but demonstrate relative leniency towards defendants of their own gender. Such favoritism at charging translates into a sentencing gap of roughly five months of incarceration for defendants who are paired with an own-gender prosecutor versus an opposite-gender prosecutor, which represents a roughly eight percent reduction in sentence length at the mean. The estimates do not appear to be driven by differences in case assignments for male and female prosecutors."

Logical Limits of the Randomized Controlled Trial Research Design

For many, and for obvious methodological reasons, the randomized control trial (“RCT”) is "the" (or "a") research design "gold standard" for those seeking data with possible causal implications. (For a nice quick description of RCTs click here.) In contrast, those interested in a clever, "tongue-in-cheek," "critique" of the pursuit of absolute research design "purity" might be interested in a 2003 "essay," Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomized controlled trials, by Gordon CS Smith (Cambridge--medicine) et al. In the "essay" the authors observe that they could not find any "published research presenting results from randomized controlled trials of parachute use." Consequently, the essay "argues" that the empirical basis for the parachute's efficacy is "purely observational" and, moreover, that existing "observational" data on the parachute's apparent efficacy could potentially be explained by a "healthy cohort" effect.

The Fourth Amendment Post-Carpenter

The long-anticipated collision between Fourth Amendment rights and technology has largely arrived. On the one hand, traditional legal doctrine implies that "information shared with a third party like a bank or telephone company was not protected by the Fourth Amendment." On the other hand, the volume of information now exposed to third parties has "exploded in the internet age, encompassing virtually every kind of digital data generated by internet and cell phone users." In 2018, the Court weighed in and its Carpenter decision was deemed "revolutionary" by holding, in part, that "individuals can retain Fourth Amendment rights in information they disclose to third parties." Specifically, the Court ruled that government agents had to "obtain a warrant before collecting cell phone location data that showed virtually everywhere a suspect had travelled over a seven-day period."

How lower courts understand and have operationalized the Carpenter decision is the focus of The Aftermath of Carpenter: An Empirical Study of Fourth Amendment Law, 2018-2021, by Matthew Tokson (Utah). The paper examines all 857 federal and state court decisions that cite to Carpenter from the decision's 2018 publication through March 2021. Among the salient factors driving lower court outcomes include: "the revealing nature of the data at issue, the amount of data collected, and the automatic nature of data disclosure, and clearly do not include the number of persons affected." An excerpted abstract follows.

"[The paper] examines disagreements among lower courts about the scope and breadth of Carpenter, as some courts apply its concepts expansively while others attempt to narrow it from below. It explores how state courts apply federal constitutional law, blending federal and state interests in unique ways. And it analyzes the enormous practical impact of the “good faith exception” to the exclusionary rule, which permits the government to use unconstitutionally obtained evidence to convict defendants if such evidence was collected in reliance on prior law. Based on these findings, the Article suggests alternative factors and paradigms that courts can adopt to more effectively address Fourth Amendment questions going forward. In addition to its many contributions to the Fourth Amendment literature, the Article is the most comprehensive study to date of the jurisprudential impact of a Supreme Court case in the years following its publication."

Pro Se Civil Litigation in Federal Courts

Public and scholarly attention to pro se litigation is growing. In Mapping the Civil Justice Gap in Federal Court, Roger Michalski (Oklahoma) and Andrew Hammond (Oklahoma) provide a helpful empirical perspective.

Careful attention to pro se litigation is warranted. The sheer volume of pro se litigants will surprise many, if not most. According to the authors' calculations, last year 12 percent of the non-prisoner civil cases filed in federal district courts (more than 25,000 cases) were pro se. Aside from the scope of this issue, "pro se litigants raise unique practical, doctrinal, and normative concerns for the legal academy, the bar, and the federal bench.”

Not surprisingly, methodological challenges limit empirical assessments of pro se litigation. While the paper is appropriately mindful of these limitations, it nonetheless does not "let the perfect be the enemy of the good." As such, the paper analytically confines itself to describing "where pro se litigants live and identify the communities they inhabit." To be sure, while a modest contribution it nonetheless  adds to the knowledge base. That said, analytic limitations endure. "None of our claims speak to the characteristics of pro se litigants directly, only indirectly. This is an important limitation of this study and raises bias concerns. Bias might creep in because it is possible that pro se litigants are systematically atypical of the neighborhoods in which they live."

To accomplish its goals, and limitations aside, the paper exploits "a massive data set of 2.5 million federal dockets from a ten-year period, we obtained addresses of non-prisoner pro se litigants. We then geolocated these addresses and cross-referenced that information with demographic and economic Census data." After various data exclusions (e.g., prisoner suits and cases involving habeas, immigration/deportation cases, naturalization, and bankruptcy claims), what remained included approximately 20,000 federal civil cases per year.

The papers dwells on two core findings. One involves pro se litigants' "profound ordinariness." A second finding involves exceptions to the first. "Even after accounting for population and income, pro se litigants are more likely to reside in communities that are not homogenously white. And numerous rural communities feature fewer pro se litigants than expected.” An excerpted abstract follows.

"Unrepresented litigants make up a sizable and normatively important chunk of civil litigation in the federal courts. Despite their importance, we still know little about who these pro se litigants are. Debates about pro se litigation take place without sufficient empirical information. To help fill some of the gaps in our understanding of pro se litigants, this Article takes a new approach by mapping where pro se litigants live."