Frequency and Success: An Empirical Study of Criminal Law ... · A cover letter giving background on the purpose of the study, a copy of the survey, and a business reply envelope

(1709)

FREQUENCY AND SUCCESS: AN EMPIRICAL STUDY OFCRIMINAL LAW DEFENSES, FEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL

EVIDENTIARY CLAIMS, AND PLEA NEGOTIATIONS

STEPHEN G. VALDES†

INTRODUCTION

Discussions of criminal law defenses typically focus on policy is-sues,1 with pundits, lawmakers, and scholars each advocating differentgrounds for allowing various defenses. While the insanity defense andplea negotiations have been the subject of intense philosophical andstatistical scrutiny, most defenses have simply been accepted as part ofthe system without any empirical examination of their use.2 This sur-vey of prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys investigates the fre-quency and success rates of six defenses (entrapment, statutes oflimitations, double jeopardy, diplomatic immunity, insanity, and rea-sonable mistake of law), three constitutional evidentiary provisions(the Fourth Amendment search and seizure exclusionary rule, theFifth Amendment Miranda rule, and Sixth Amendment faulty identifi-cation procedures), and plea negotiations.

† B.A. 2000, University of Notre Dame; J.D. Candidate 2005, University of Pennsyl-vania. This paper is dedicated to my mother for always being there to support me.This project would have not been possible without the support of Professor PaulRobinson, who assisted with and funded the survey and to whom I am extremely grate-ful. Many thanks are due to Sarah Greenberger, Nell McCarthy, and Sean McEl-downey at the Penn Law Review who did outstanding work editing the piece and provid-ing critique. Thanks as well to Professor David Rudovsky for advice in designing thesurvey, Professor Seth Kreimer for providing feedback on the paper, and Frank Yoonfor assistance reviewing the research methods used in this study. Finally, to my friendswhom I pressed into service at various stages of the project, I owe a great deal ofthanks: Matthew Insley-Pruitt, Jennifer E. Lee, Nicholas Murat, Atul Aggarwal, SheelaPai, Melissa Grouzard, Loren Stewart, Jina Chung, Victoria Anderson, Alastair Agcaoili,Alex Sistla, and Emily Cohen.

1See Neil P. Cohen et al., The Prevalence and Use of Criminal Defenses: A Preliminary

Study, 60 TENN. L. REV. 957, 957 (1993) (“[V]irtually all of the literature on criminaldefenses focuses on either doctrinal or strategic issues. . . . Unfortunately, very little hasbeen written about the actual use of criminal defenses in the American criminal justicesystem.”).

2See id. (stating that insanity is the only defense that has received significant atten-

tion).

1710 UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 153: 1709

This survey is unique in its attempt to go beyond the trial setting(where most previous studies have focused)3 to understand the useand application of defenses in the criminal justice system as a whole.Because only about five percent of criminal cases are decided at trial,4

existing trial-focused surveys fail to paint an accurate picture of thetrue role of defenses. To reach beyond the confines of trial tran-scripts and limited resources, this survey asked individual prosecutors,judges, and defense attorneys to answer questions based on all thecases they saw in the past twelve months, rather than just those thatwent to trial.5 Respondents estimated the number of times they en-countered each defense, how often it was successful, how often itcould have been offered but was not, and how often it resulted innonprosecution of a case.6

Part I of this Comment describes the research methods used inthe study. Parts II through IV provide background information on thedefenses being studied and present the study’s results regarding theuse and success of these defenses. Specifically, Part II centers on thecriminal defenses; Part III addresses the Fourth, Fifth, and SixthAmendment exclusionary rules; and Part IV discusses plea negotia-tions. Finally, Part V reviews items not specifically covered under theprevious sections: the difference in the results between Maryland dis-trict court and Maryland circuit court and the effect of plea negotia-tions on the application of the defenses. The Comment concludeswith a brief discussion of what the results of this survey suggest for fu-ture study in these areas.

I. RESEARCH METHODS

A cover letter giving background on the purpose of the study, acopy of the survey, and a business reply envelope were mailed to 914judges, 983 prosecuting attorneys, and 912 criminal defense attorneysin Arkansas, Colorado, Maryland, Rhode Island, Oregon, and Wiscon-

3See, e.g., id. at 960-81 (surveying trial usage of various defenses); Peter F. Nardulli,

The Societal Cost of the Exclusionary Rule: An Empirical Assessment, 1983 AM. B. FOUND.RES. J. 585, 593 (basing results on trial court files).

4Jenny Roberts, Too Little, Too Late: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel, the Duty to Inves-

tigate, and Pretrial Discovery in Criminal Cases, 31 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 1097, 1136 (2004)(“About ninety-five percent of criminal cases end not with trials, but in plea bar-gains.”).

5The survey questionnaire used in this study is included in Appendix A, infra. All

survey questionnaire responses are on file with the author.6

Infra app. A.

2005] FREQUENCY AND SUCCESS 1711

sin;7 400 surveys were returned, 148 by state court judges,8 128 byprosecutors, and 124 by defense attorneys.9

The survey first asked the respondents to indicate their position(“Judge,” “Prosecutor,” or “Defense Attorney”), their location (“Ur-ban,” “Suburban,” or “Rural”), the number of criminal cases in whichthey were personally involved during the past twelve months, and thenumber of criminal cases in their locale over the past twelve months.10

For each defense, the survey asked the respondent to estimate thenumber of cases in the past twelve months in which each defense wasraised,11 was successful, could have been raised but was not, or was thegrounds for nonprosecution of the defendant.12 Regarding plea bar-gains, respondents were asked to estimate the percentage, rather thannumber, of cases in which a plea bargain was offered; the percentageof plea offers that were accepted; and the percentage of accepted pleabargains that resulted in a reduced charge, a reduced sentence, or in

7In entering the results, three methods were adopted to standardize entries.

Each of these was necessary to prevent otherwise acceptable responses from being dis-carded. The three main techniques were: (1) if a respondent answered with a range,the middle point was entered as her response (e.g., if a respondent answered “7-10,”“8.5” was used as her answer); (2) if a respondent answered “0” for “Defense Offered”but left “Defense Successful” blank, “0” was entered for “Defense Successful”; (3) if arespondent used percentages, the actual number was calculated from the percent andthe respondent’s number of cases (e.g., if respondent heard 100 cases and answered“1%” to a particular question, then “1” was entered as her response).

8Of the 148 state court judge responses, 13 were from Maryland district court

judges and are not included in the overall results. See infra note 21 and accompanyingtext.

9Respondents saw a combined total of 188,031 criminal cases themselves, and es-

timated a combined total of 1,991,607 criminal cases in their various locales. Felonycourt judges saw an average of 641 criminal cases per year, prosecutors 640, and de-fense attorneys 145. It is possible that there was some overlap between cases seen byjudges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys, but there is no way to ascertain the extentof such overlap.

10In the first round of surveys, the adjective “criminal” was mistakenly omitted be-

fore the word “cases”; follow-up was conducted on completed surveys from that batchto prevent mixing of criminal and civil case loads. Because terminology varies fromstate to state, the more general term “locale” was chosen instead of terms such as “dis-trict” or “ward.” A small number of surveys were mailed out using the term “district”rather than “locale.” Because of the small number, it was not possible to ascertainwhether this difference in wording affected the results reported for “locale.”

11Surveys containing the phrase “at trial” in the question description were mistak-

enly sent out to a portion of those surveyed. Comparing this sample with results fromthose receiving the correct survey showed no statistical difference in responses re-ceived.

12This method was adapted from that used in the Cohen study. Cohen et al., su-

pra note 1, at 959. Special thanks to Professor Cohen for speaking with me about themethod and offering suggestions for use in my study.


nonprosecution.13 Finally, a page was left open for free responses, andrespondents were given the option of providing contact information.14

Since the majority of the defenses studied are rarely used, by limitingthe time frame to the previous twelve months my intention was thatrespondents would remember the defenses’ occurrences and be ableto provide accurate information as to how many times respondentspersonally saw the defenses. Anecdotal evidence supporting this as-sertion was offered by some respondents who commented that theyremembered seeing certain defenses a specific number of times intheir career, let alone in the past twelve months.15

In some cases, a judge saw only a handful of criminal cases in thepast twelve months, while others saw a great deal. This is becausesome judges split their dockets between criminal and civil cases, whileothers primarily focus on one or the other. Similarly, prosecutors anddefense attorneys may handle either felony or misdemeanor cases. Assuch, those surveyed represent a variety of different case loads and po-tential specializations within criminal law. The individual circum-stances of each respondent naturally shape the types of cases she en-counters and therefore the likelihood of certain defenses being raisedin the cases she sees.16 Additionally, the study sought to survey everyjudge and prosecutor and a large number of defense attorneys in eachjurisdiction. Because of this, it is possible that respondents sharesome characteristic that might affect the results. It is impossible to as-certain if there is a bias and how such a bias might have impacted thedata. However, respondents’ answers to the question on plea bar-gains, which have been studied in depth elsewhere, match the num-

13The survey assumed a plea has three possible outcomes: the original charge is

reduced, the charge remains the same but the defendant receives a reduced sentence,or the prosecution is dropped either completely or contingent on some other condi-tion. There was a significant overlap between these categories, which is discussed ingreater detail infra text accompanying notes 139-41.

14Each survey had a confidential identification number to allow for tracking re-

sponses, though the number was removed by a few respondents. In order to protectthe confidentiality of the respondents, each respondent was assigned another randomnumber that differed from the number affixed to that person’s survey itself. Respon-dents quoted in this Comment are identified by this random number to further pro-tect anonymity.

15Respondents 55,789 and 55,577.

16Because of the rarity of the defenses studied, a median response of zero was ex-

pected for most defenses. This fact, combined with the varying case loads and speciali-zations, led to a large standard deviation. For example, if a respondent specialized indrug cases and saw many entrapment defenses, she would have a much higher averagerate of occurrence for that category and it would have a significant effect on the stan-dard deviation, even though the response itself was reliable.


bers found in other studies.17 The insanity defense has also been stud-ied elsewhere, and the results of this survey also fit squarely within theresults of those other studies.18 Statistically, these consistencies cannotbe used to support the findings on the other studied defenses. How-ever, if this study produced results consistent with other studies, andthe same research method is being used throughout the study, thenlogically the consistent results for studied defenses seems to supportthe results for unstudied defenses.19

The defenses studied were selected to represent a wide variety ofissues, with an emphasis on items that have been subject to little or noempirical study. While the states surveyed were selected to representdifferent geographic areas, sizes, and clarities of criminal code, it isimportant to note that the survey is not intended to be representativeof other states or of the nation as a whole.20 Surveys were mailed toevery judge in courts with general jurisdiction over felony cases. Eachstate surveyed has municipal courts that handle misdemeanor cases.However, judges in these courts were not included, with one excep-tion: surveys were mailed to both the limited jurisdiction Marylanddistrict court, which has jurisdiction over misdemeanor and some fel-ony cases, as well as to the Maryland circuit court, which has generaljurisdiction over felony cases.21 It was assumed that felony cases arelikely to be more intensely litigated than misdemeanor cases, andtherefore that there is a greater chance that the defenses in this surveywould be raised in felony cases. Surveys were sent to both sets ofMaryland judges to test this hypothesis, and the results provide sup-port for this proposition.22

17See infra notes 135-37 and accompanying text (discussing national statistics and

this survey’s findings).18

Infra notes 75-79 and accompanying text.19

Even if the respondents were to share some common characteristic, the resultswould still be valuable for demonstrating that the defenses studied do arise on a regu-lar basis among the sample who responded.

20The determination of criminal code quality was based on the rankings in Paul

H. Robinson et al., The Five Worst (and Five Best) American Criminal Codes, 95 NW. U. L.REV. 1, 60-61 (2000). The rankings were based on whether the criminal code wasclearly written, well-articulated, and comprehensive. States with codes that were vagueor archaic in form, and states that still relied on case law rather than a code to definecrimes, received lower ranks. The states surveyed ranked as follows: Colorado, 2; Ar-kansas, 3; Wisconsin, 20; Oregon, 21; Maryland, 49; Rhode Island, 49. Id.

21Because of the unique jurisdictional grant of Maryland district courts, results

from judges in those courts are not included in the overall results cited throughoutthis paper. Not surprisingly, results from the Maryland district court judges differedmarkedly from other jurisdictions.

22See infra Part V.A. Surveys sent to Maryland prosecutors and defense attorneys


Surveys were also mailed to every prosecutor who handled adultcriminal prosecutions.23 The names of private criminal defense law-yers were obtained from Lexis-Nexis’s Martindale-Hubbell database.24

Public defenders’ names were obtained from offices that coordinatedpublic defenders’ offices statewide. All names from these two sourceswere entered into an Excel spreadsheet, and the list was randomized.Surveys were mailed to the first 170 listed defense attorneys from eachstate, except Oregon and Rhode Island for which there were fewerthan 170 names available, and surveys were therefore mailed to all de-fense attorneys listed in Oregon and Rhode Island.25

Results represent the average percentage of cases per year whererespondents either saw the defense personally or estimated that thedefense was seen in their locale. The success rate was calculated bydividing the total number of times a defense was successful by the to-tal number of times it was offered.

also asked whether they practiced primarily in the district or circuit courts, but thisdata was not included in the results because there was significant crossover among re-spondents, i.e., most worked in both courts and thus a separate analysis was not possi-ble.

23Prosecutors from offices that had specific juvenile divisions were not surveyed.

Some offices had policies against releasing the names of prosecutors; in these cases,arrangements were made to mail a packet of surveys to an office manager, who thendistributed them within the office. To ensure that the proper yield was known, the of-fice managers supplied the number of attorneys to whom they distributed the surveys.In such cases, it is possible that a juvenile prosecutor would have obtained a copy ofthe survey, or that general prosecutors would see both juvenile and adult cases and in-clude both types of cases in their responses. Finally, in a handful of instances, prosecu-tors’ offices declined to participate.

24Although the Martindale-Hubbell database is not comprehensive, it is one of

the only resources of its kind and does provide a wealth of information on a greatnumber of attorneys. Prosecutors and defense attorneys, unlike the judges surveyed,are not necessarily limited to felony or misdemeanor court cases. It was not possiblefor this study to investigate the individual caseload of each prosecutor and defense at-torney surveyed, and these factors could have some influence on the results. By ob-taining this information, future studies may be able to enhance our understanding ofthe use of criminal defenses.

25The number 170 was selected to maximize the number of surveys sent within

resource constraints. Surveys were mailed to all defense attorneys in Oregon (114)and Rhode Island (118).


II. CRIMINAL DEFENSES: ENTRAPMENT, STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS,DOUBLE JEOPARDY, DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY, INSANITY,

AND REASONABLE MISTAKE OF LAW

A. Entrapment

There are two competing rationales for the existence of the en-trapment defense. The first condemns the inducement of an other-wise innocent citizen;26 the second seeks to punish police wrongdoingso as not to “[sully] the integrity of the judicial process.”27 As a result,there are two different conceptual frameworks for entrapment. “Ob-jective” entrapment focuses on the impropriety of the police on a par-ticular occasion, rather than the defendant’s pattern of behavior.28

“Subjective” entrapment asks whether the defendant had a predisposi-tion to commit the crime and only allows the defense when the de-fendant was unlikely to commit the crime without the involvement ofthe police.29 Regardless of formulation, the underlying goal of bothenactments is to deter police misconduct30 and to prevent the abuse ofindividual rights during criminal capture and attempts to lead an in-nocent person astray.

The entrapment defense is used at trial in a limited number ofcases when plea negotiations and all other tactics have failed.31 Thissurvey, while not limited to trials, found that the entrapment defense

26PAUL H. ROBINSON, CRIMINAL LAW § 10.3, at 601-02 (1997).

27Id. § 10.3, at 604.

28See id. § 10.3, at 601-02 (describing the qualities of objective entrapment). Ar-

kansas statutory law uses an objective framework, ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-2-209(b) (Michie1997), but Arkansas courts also consider subjective elements, see, e.g., Harper v. State,643 S.W.2d 585, 587 (Ark. Ct. App. 1982) (considering defendant’s conduct and pre-disposition as a necessary element of deciding whether the police truly induced thedefendant). Colorado also uses an objective test. COLO. REV. STAT. § 18-1-709 (2003).

29See ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 10.3, at 602 (describing subjective formulations

of the entrapment defense). The remaining jurisdictions included in this survey (i.e.,the states other than Arkansas and Colorado) employ a subjective test. OR. REV. STAT.§ 161.275 (2003); Grohman v. State, 267 A.2d 193, 196 (Md. 1969); State v. Jones, 416A.2d 676, 679 (R.I. 1980); State v. Saternus, 381 N.W.2d 290, 294 (Wis. 1986).

30See ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 10.3, at 608 (noting that the subjective approach

exists as a defense because, when entrapment is at issue, the officer’s wrongdoing cre-ated the idea of the crime); Ben A. Hardy, The Traps of Entrapment, 3 AM. J. CRIM. L.165, 166-67 (1974) (“[The objective] approach will not condone police or governmentconduct that presents too great a risk that an innocent person will be induced tocommit a crime . . . .”).

31See Hardy, supra note 30, at 188-89 (describing an apparent consensus among a

group of criminal lawyers in Austin, Texas, that entrapment is a defense of last resort).


arose in 0.08% of cases and succeeded in one-third of these cases.32

Anecdotally, respondents indicated that entrapment is mainly offeredas a defense in drug cases, though to little avail.33 The defense wasdisproportionately encountered by urban prosecutors, who reportedseeing the defense in 0.47% of their cases.34 The only defense that wasbypassed by defense attorneys more often than entrapment was insan-ity.35

Because an entrapment defense generally requires the defendantto admit to committing the crime as a predicate of asserting the de-fense, it may be that defendants bypass entrapment defenses to avoidthe social stigma of being an admitted criminal.36

Broken down by state, the reported success of entrapment is gen-erally lower in states adopting an objective rather than subjective ap-proach. Arkansas and Colorado, the only states surveyed that use theobjective standard, had respective success rates of 4.76%37 and0.00%.38 Oregon and Rhode Island had much higher success rates,

32Infra app. B, at tbl.B.1. In 1976, a study of 405 federal entrapment cases over a

five-year period found that only two defendants were successful in using it. RogerPark, The Entrapment Controversy, 60 MINN. L. REV. 163, 178 n.44 (1976) (noting thatalthough 27 out of 405 cases involved reversal or acquittal for entrapment-related er-ror, only two “involved a determination that entrapment had been established as amatter of law”). A 1993 study found entrapment being offered in 0.2% of Tennesseestate trials and having a success rate of 30%. Cohen et al., supra note 1, at 973 tbl.2,975 tbl.4. At the time of Professor Cohen’s survey, Tennessee generally followed thesubjective rule, TENN. CODE ANN. § 39-11-505 (1997) (enacted 1989), though if theconduct of the police was particularly egregious, it could result in an acquittal regard-less of the accuser’s conduct, see State v. Jones, 598 S.W.2d 209, 217 (Tenn. 1980) (not-ing that the United States Supreme Court mentioned, in dicta, the possibility of en-trapment being a due process violation (citing United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423,431-32 (1973))), overruled on other grounds by State v. Shropshire, 874 S.W.2d 634 (Tenn.1993).

33Comments from Respondents 55,623 (noting that entrapment is pleaded in any

drug sale), 55585 (noting that respondent does not see entrapment defenses raisedbecause she is not involved in cases stemming from drug buys), and 55,714 (recallingnot a single successful entrapment defense in eighteen years on the bench).

34Infra app. G, at tbl.G.1.

35The insanity defense was bypassed at a rate of 0.39%, while the entrapment de-

fense was bypassed at a rate of 0.16%. Infra app. B, at tbl.B.1. Fourth and FifthAmendment claims had higher bypass rates (1.54% and 0.99%, respectively, infra app.B, at tbl.B.2), but, as discussed in Part III, these are evidentiary claims rather than de-fenses.

36See Cohen et al., supra note 1, at 963-64 (suggesting a social bias against crimi-

nals).37

Infra app. C, at tbl.C.1.38

Infra app. C, at tbl.C.4.


85.98%39 and 50.00%,40 respectively, while Maryland41 and Wisconsin42

had approximately the same success rate as Arkansas.43 This resultseems logical as it is much more difficult to demonstrate that the de-fendant would not have engaged in the crime but for the police mis-conduct (objective standard) than it is to show a defendant’s prior in-nocence (subjective standard). This survey indicates a potentialrelationship between the statutory formulation of the entrapment de-fense and its real world success. This correlation could indicate that alegislature has the ability to stack the deck in favor of either the de-fendant or the prosecution depending on the formulation of the de-fense that it adopts.

B. Statute of Limitations

While nearly every American jurisdiction has some type of statuteof limitations on felony charges,44 no empirical studies have beenconducted on how often these statutes serve as a bar to prosecution.First used in England in 1623, the statute of limitations addressedconcerns about the reliability of old evidence.45 A second justificationfor time limitations on prosecutions is to encourage society to moveon and allow individuals, who may have committed wrongs long ago,to live their lives without fear that they will be prosecuted for some-thing in the distant past.46 However, the increased reliability of DNAtesting and improved forensic science arguably negate questions of re-liability, and as such, some states have begun reevaluating their stat-utes of limitations.47

39Infra app. C, at tbl.C.10.

40Infra app. C, at tbl.C.13.

41See infra app. C, at tbl.C.7 (reporting 5.00% success rate for entrapment in Mary-

land).42

See infra app. C, at tbl.C.16 (reporting 4.55% success rate for entrapment inWisconsin).

43It should be noted that Arkansas allows some subjective elements, supra note 28,

which may be a factor in its higher success rate compared to Colorado, which uses apurely objective standard.

44 ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 10.2, at 576 & n.1. Kentucky is the only state thathas no time limitations for felonies, and there is little indication that the lack of thisprovision has resulted in any injustice. PAUL H. ROBINSON & MICHAEL T. CAHILL, LAWWITHOUT JUSTICE (forthcoming June 2005) (manuscript at ch3-9, on file with author).

45ROBINSON & CAHILL, supra note 44 (manuscript at ch3-6).

46ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 10.2, at 579. Under this rationalization, advances in

forensic science do not significantly change the analysis of whether a time limit shouldexist or not.

47See, e.g., DNA Evidence Spurs States to Drop Statute of Limitations on Rape Cases, ST.


This survey found that statute of limitations defenses were offeredin nearly 2 out of every 1000 reported cases and, when offered, wereone of the most successful defenses, winning in approximately half ofall cases.48 Furthermore, in an additional 0.15% of reported cases, acase was not prosecuted because of concerns about a time limitation.49

While the survey does not provide context for specific instances of use,the high success rate, coupled with the cases not prosecuted, makesthis defense worthy of further study. All legislatures should realize thepotential impact of this defense and take action to reevaluate thelengths and appropriateness of limitations in light of new technologyas applied to individual crimes.

C. Double Jeopardy

The rule against double jeopardy is enshrined in the Bill ofRights, which states, “nor shall any person be subject for the same of-fense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.”50 The constitutionalrule on double jeopardy serves several purposes. As the SupremeCourt has stated:

[T]he State with all its resources and power should not be allowed tomake repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense,thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal andcompelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, aswell as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may befound guilty.

51

Further, the prohibition stems from a desire to have finality injudgments and from the belief that an acquittal carries a specialweight.52 However, like many of the rules discussed in this Comment,

LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, Mar. 19, 2000, at A16 (“In 1997, Florida removed a statute oflimitation on any rape case where potential DNA evidence has been collected. Thatyear, Nevada eliminated its statute of limitations in rape cases. In California, Hawaii,Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York and Wisconsin, lawmakers are now re-examining their statutes of limitations.”); Miguel Bustillo, Panel Approves Extended RapeProsecution Statute, L.A. TIMES, Mar. 1, 2000, at A15 (“Across the nation, statutes of limi-tation have come under intense criticism in recent years as a combination of groupsquestions whether they block justice in an age when DNA evidence can point to sus-pects decades after a crime occurred—and sometimes free innocent people fromjail.”).

48Infra app. B, at tbl.B.1.


50U.S. CONST. amend. V.

51Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187-88 (1957).

52RONALD JAY ALLEN ET AL., COMPREHENSIVE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE 1353-54

(2001). The Double Jeopardy Clause also prevents the government from using a first


it was drafted at a time when prosecutions were conducted without thebenefit of modern forensic science; hence, some aspects of the rulecan be, and are being, challenged.53

Double jeopardy has never been empirically studied54 despite itsincorporation into the Constitution over two hundred years ago and anumber of highly publicized cases where new evidence was discoveredbut the double jeopardy rule barred a new trial.55 While rare, respon-dents reported double jeopardy being raised in 0.16% of cases and be-ing successful about 20% of the time.56 Additionally, double jeopardy

trial to test its case and protects defendants’ rights to have a trial adjudicated by thetribunal that began the evaluation of the prosecution’s case. Id.

53See ROBINSON & CAHILL, supra note 44 (manuscript at ch7-31 to –32) (discussing

the problems with the current approach to double jeopardy). High recidivism rates inthe United States have led some states to adopt “three strikes” laws that allow increasedsentences for repeat violators. The Supreme Court has repeatedly skirted the issue ofwhether such laws violate constitutional double jeopardy rules. Joshua R. Pater, Re-cent Developments, Struck Out Looking: Continued Confusion in Eighth Amendment Propor-tionality Review After Ewing v. California, 123 S. Ct. 1179 (2003), 27 HARV. J.L. & PUB.POL’Y 399, 415-16 (2003). It is because of these concerns that the principle is not asstringently applied outside the United States, where many nations, while still havingthe rule generally, have exceptions for extreme cases: situations where new evidencecomes to light and those involving modern developments in criminal justice. See THELAW COMM’N, REPORT NO. 267, DOUBLE JEOPARDY AND PROSECUTION APPEALS ¶ 1.18(2001) (describing a proposal to permit retrial “where there is compelling new evi-dence of guilt” and it would be “in the interests of justice” to do so), available athttp://www.lawcom.gov.uk/files/lc267.pdf. In Europe, “Article 4(2) of Protocol 7 [ofthe European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and FundamentalFreedoms states] that a case may be retried if new evidence emerges, or the originalproceeding was fundamentally defective.” Lauri A. Moossa, Note, England’s Attempt toRelax the Rule Against Double Jeopardy: Balancing Justice and Scientific Advancement with aCornerstone of Common Law, 25 SUFFOLK TRANSNAT’L L. REV. 587, 594 (2002). In re-sponse to rising crime rates, even England (whose development of the double jeopardyrule has served as a model for many other countries, including the United States) isconsidering legislative changes to the rule that would reflect modern developments inforensic science. See Stephanie Francis Cahill, Britain May Change Some Ancient Rules, 1A.B.A. J. E-REPORT 28 (July 26, 2002), LEXIS 1 ABA Journal eReport 28 (discussingproposals by the Blair government to reform double jeopardy).

54This lack of attention may be traced to two possible explanations: (1) the rule

enjoys widespread support (or at least deference) despite the potential for grave injus-tice, and (2) the assumption that its occurrence is so rare as to outweigh the costs ofhaving it. See Gary DiBianco, Note, Truly Constitutional? The American Double JeopardyClause and Its Australian Analogues, 33 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 123, 126 (1995) (noting thatthe adoption and subsequent development of American double jeopardy jurispru-dence is “marked by a lack of debate, policy discussion, or other indicia of intent”).

55See, e.g., ROBINSON & CAHILL, supra note 44 (manuscript at ch7-21 to –30) (de-

scribing a case where photographs showing the defendant torturing and killing thevictim were discovered after a defendant was acquitted of murder and thus doublejeopardy prevented conviction for the murder).



concerns resulted in nonprosecution in 0.08% of cases.57 Criminal lawshould evolve to reflect modern conceptions of justice. When conclu-sive evidence is discovered after an acquittal, the risk of governmentabuse through multiple trials is generally negated by the evidence thatthe crime was actually committed. Among other nations there is agrowing acceptance of exceptions to the rule against double jeop-ardy.58 Unfortunately, the language used in the Constitution makessuch an evolution difficult in the United States.

D. Diplomatic Immunity

Today, diplomatic immunity is justified by the theory of functionalnecessity, adopted in 1961 by the Vienna Convention on DiplomaticImmunity,59 under which immunity is granted as necessary for a dip-lomat to be able to properly carry out her duties.60 Another funda-mental justification for diplomatic immunity is fear of reciprocationagainst our own diplomats abroad should we prosecute foreign dip-lomats in the United States.61 Of course, a state may waive immunityin individual cases, but in practice that almost never happens.62

While the most prevalent crimes committed by diplomats areparking violations,63 felony offenses by diplomats are rare but not in-


58See supra note 53 (describing moves to adapt the rule against double jeopardy in

Europe).59 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, Apr. 18, 1961, 23 U.S.T. 3227, 500

U.N.T.S. 95; see also James S. Parkhill, Note, Diplomacy in the Modern World: A Reconsid-eration of the Bases for Diplomatic Immunity in the Era of High-Tech Communications, 21HASTINGS INT’L & COMP. L. REV. 565, 572-73 (1998) (discussing the “functional neces-sity” grounds for honoring diplomatic immunity); Lori J. Shapiro, Note, Foreign Rela-tions Law: Modern Developments in Diplomatic Immunity, 1989 ANN. SURV. AM. L. 281, 283(“Functional necessity is now recognized by . . . the Vienna Convention on DiplomaticRelations as a valid rationale for diplomatic immunity.” (footnotes omitted)).

60ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 10.2, at 584. One traditional justification for diplo-

matic immunity, extraterritoriality, was premised on the notion that “a diplomat re-sides in his home country even though he is physically located in the receiving coun-try” and thus was only subject to personal jurisdiction in his home state. Shapiro, supranote 59, at 282. A second rationale is that the diplomat acts as a personal representativeof her nation and respect for that nation “does not permit subjugation to the jurisdic-tion of a foreign sovereign.” William F. Marmon, Jr., Note, The Diplomatic Relations Actof 1978 and Its Consequences, 19 VA. J. INT’L L. 131, 132 (1978).

61ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 10.2, at 584.

62See Parkhill, supra note 59, at 565-66 (asserting the rarity of waiver and citing

one exception).63

In 1984, 108,000 tickets were given to diplomats in London, though by 1986changes in laws had reduced this number to 30,000. GRANT V. MCCLANAHAN,DIPLOMATIC IMMUNITY 14 (1989).


significant.64 The State Department reported that between 1982 and1988, 191 crimes were alleged to have been committed by personswith diplomatic immunity in Washington, D.C. and New York City.65

Another State Department study found that, in 1995, fifteen “serious”incidents occurred nationwide among the 18,350 diplomats accordedfull immunity.66

Since New York City and Washington, D.C. are home to most dip-lomats, it is not surprising that the occurrence of the defense is rareelsewhere—of the 175,384 cases seen by respondents in this study,there were only nine reported incidents of the defense being raised,67

and the defense was successful in only three cases.68 Although thereare arguments for reforming the doctrine of diplomatic immunity,69

the findings of this survey provide only marginal support for reform.

E. The Overall Effect of Nonexculpatory Defenses

At the heart of debate on nonexculpatory defenses is whether we,as a society, want to tolerate culpable individuals going unpunished.Thus far, the answer has been yes. We place greater value on deter-ring police and government misconduct, moving on, and ensuringgood international relationships than prosecuting every culpable indi-

64See Parkhill, supra note 59, at 577-78 (reporting the extent of diplomatic crime).

Note that diplomatic immunity extends to the families of diplomats as well.65

MCCLANAHAN, supra note 63, at 170 & tbl.1, 171 & tbl.2. More than 10,000people in New York City and Washington, D.C. were estimated to be entitled to suchimmunity, including envoys to the United States and the United Nations. Id. at 171-72.The most prevalent crimes were shoplifting (63 occurrences), assault (37 occur-rences), and sex offenses (23 occurrences). Id. at 170-71.

66Parkhill, supra note 59, at 577.

67Two cases were reported in Colorado, two in Maryland, three in Oregon, and

two in Wisconsin. Additionally, one judge commented that he had seen the diplo-matic immunity defense unsuccessfully offered two years ago. Respondent 55,789.

68Two successful cases were reported in Oregon and one in Maryland. An addi-

tional seven instances out of 132,722 were reported in which diplomatic immunity ledto nonprosecution. However, all seven were reported by one respondent in Oregon,who did not offer a comment or explanation of the case(s). Respondent 55,685.

69See, e.g., Juliana J. Keaton, Note, Does the Fifth Amendment Takings Clause Mandate

Relief for Victims of Diplomatic Immunity Abuse?, 17 HASTINGS CONST. L.Q. 567, 569(1990) (advocating payments by the U.S. government to persons harmed by diplomatswho cannot be successfully prosecuted); Parkhill, supra note 59, at 588-95 (offeringsuggestions for reform); Shapiro, supra note 59, at 294-306 (detailing various reformproposals); Stephen L. Wright, Note, Diplomatic Immunity: A Proposal for Amending theVienna Convention to Deter Violent Criminal Acts, 5 B.U. INT’L L.J. 177, 184 (1987) (pro-posing amending the Vienna Convention to provide an international mechanism fortrying diplomats).


vidual. This survey shows that such defenses do arise and those whoadvocate against the reform of these rules can no longer use theircomplete irrelevance as an excuse, though they can continue to assertthat they are rare. On the other hand, advocates for change can pointto these numbers to suggest that the issues arise often enough tomerit a serious consideration of the costs and benefits of the rules asthey are currently applied. Furthermore, the links seen between theformulation of the entrapment defense and its relative success suggestthat statutory reform may be used to effectively craft defenses in a waythat achieves the appropriate balance between each rule’s costs andbenefits.

F. Insanity

Generally classified as an excuse,70 the insanity defense has multi-ple formulations.71 The M’Naghten test asks whether the defendantknew right from wrong and understood the nature of her act at thetime of commission.72 The M’Naghten test is often combined with theirresistible impulse test which adds an element regarding a person’sability to control her actions.73 The American Law Institute’s (ALI)Model Penal Code considers whether the defendant “lacks substantialcapacity either to appreciate the criminality [wrongfulness] of hisconduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of law.”74

70ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 9.3, at 511.

71Id. at 512.

72M’Naghten’s Case, 8 Eng. Rep. 718 (H.L. 1843), described in ROBINSON, supra

note 26, § 9.3, at 512.73

ROBINSON, supra note 26, § 9.3, at 513. Nearly half of the American jurisdic-tions follow the M’Naghten test. ROBINSON & CAHILL, supra note 44 (manuscript atch2-12). Colorado follows a modified version of the M’Naghten test. COLO. REV. STAT.§ 16-8-101.5 (2003) (excusing criminal conduct under an insanity defense when a per-son is “so diseased or defective in mind at the time of the commission of the act as tobe incapable of distinguishing right from wrong . . . [or] forming a culpable mentalstate that is an essential element of a crime charged”).

74MODEL PENAL CODE § 4.01(1) (1962) (brackets in original). Five of the juris-

dictions in this survey use the Model Penal Code formulation. See ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-2-312(a)(1) (Michie Supp. 2003) (“It is an affirmative defense . . . [if] at the time thedefendant engaged in the conduct charged, he or she lacked capacity . . . to conformhis or her conduct to the requirements of law or to appreciate the criminality of his orher conduct.”); MD. CODE ANN., CRIM. PROC. § 3-109 (2001) (“A defendant is notcriminally responsible for criminal conduct if, at the time of that conduct, the defen-dant . . . lacks substantial capacity to: (1) appreciate the criminality of that conduct; or(2) conform that conduct to the requirements of law.”); OR. REV. STAT. § 161.295(1)(2003) (“A person is guilty except for insanity if, as a result of mental disease or defectat the time of engaging in criminal conduct, the person lacks substantial capacity ei-


Several studies show a great divide between popular perceptionsof the use of the insanity defense and its actual use.75 While surveyshave shown that the public believes the defense is raised in as many as50% of all trials, in reality the defense is raised infrequently, with onestudy reporting its use in only 0.9% of all felony indictment casestried.76 That same study further reports that only 26% of those seek-ing the defense are acquitted;77 the majority are sent to a mental hos-pital.

This survey’s results, while not limited to trial settings, parallelthese statistics. First, the reported occurrence and success rates for in-sanity defenses are 0.87% and 23.55%,78 respectively—which placesthis study’s findings in the same range of findings by other studies.Despite the infrequency with which surveyed lawyers encountered thedefense themselves, they assumed it arose even less often among oth-ers in their locale (0.37%) and that it was less successful among othercases in their locale (10.04%) than in their own cases (23.55%).79

The regional breakdown shows a much higher reported incidenceof the defense in rural areas.80 Arkansas, a state with a large ruralpopulation,81 indicated a significantly higher occurrence rate and a

ther to appreciate the criminality of the conduct or to conform the conduct to the re-quirements of law.”); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 971.15(1) (West 1996) (“A person is not re-sponsible for criminal conduct if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental dis-ease or defect the person lacked substantial capacity either to appreciate thewrongfulness of his or her conduct or conform his or her conduct to the requirementsof law.”); State v. Johnson, 399 A.2d 469, 476 (R.I. 1979) (adopting the Model PenalCode test for criminal responsibility). This occurrence is somewhat odd consideringthat nearly half of American jurisdictions use the M’Naghten test, while only about 20%use the Model Penal Code. ROBINSON & CAHILL, supra note 44 (manuscript at ch2-12).

75See, e.g., Eric Silver et al., Demythologizing Inaccurate Perceptions of the Insanity De-

fense, 18 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 63, 67 (1994) (“The public’s estimate of the insanity plearate . . . far exceeds the actual plea rate.”).

76Id.; see also Cohen et al., supra note 1, at 973 tbl.2 (finding the insanity defense is

offered in 0.7% of trials in Tennessee).77

Silver et al., supra note 75, at 67.78

Infra app. B, at tbl.B.1.79

Infra app. B, at tbl.B.1.80

Compare infra app. D, at tbl.D.7 (showing an occurrence rate of 1.18% in ruralareas), with infra app. D, at tbls.D.1, D.4 (showing occurrence rates of 0.79% and0.60% in urban and suburban areas, respectively).

81Univ. of Ark.-Fayetteville, Definitions for Rural Profile of Arkansas 1997, at

http://www.uark.edu/depts/hesweb/hdfsrs/definitions.html (last modified Nov. 7,1997) (“Nationally, 24.8% of the population was rural . . . as of the 1990 Census. Ar-kansas, however, was 46.5% rural and ranked eleventh in the nation.”).


much lower success rate than other states.82 Colorado, the only statesurveyed that employs the M’Naghten test,83 had the highest reportedsuccess rate for the defense at 35.33%,84 but several of the states usingthe Model Penal Code reported similar rates.85

The insanity defense was reported bypassed more often than anyother defense,86 but can be effective in leading to nonprosecution(0.12%).87 Respondents’ comments support this conclusion, as theyindicated that civil commitment or other such measures were oftenemployed in lieu of criminal prosecution in those cases where a de-fendant had serious mental illness.88

Some respondents commented that they have seen a rise in thenumber of crimes committed by mentally ill individuals.89 One rea-soned that

[i]nsanity defenses are on the rise, as are the percentage of criminal de-fendants who suffer from mental illness. As the mental health systembecomes ever more underfunded, the criminal justice system has beenmisused to replace it. The mentally ill wind up in jail or prison or undercriminal commitment orders.

90

This study is consistent with previous research91 in finding that,contrary to public perception, insanity defenses are not an over-

82See infra app. C, at tbl.C.1 (reporting a 2.30% occurrence rate and a 5.92% suc-

cess rate).83

See supra notes 72-74 and accompanying text.84

Infra app. C, at tbl.C.4.85

See infra app. C, at tbl.C.10 (reporting a success rate of 33.7% in Oregon); infraapp. C, at tbl.C.13 (reporting a success rate of 33.3% in Rhode Island); infra app. C, attbl.C.16 (reporting a success rate of 30.7% in Wisconsin). These findings may indicatethat, at least between the M’Naghten and Model Penal Code tests, the formulation haslittle effect on usage and success of the insanity defense and any reform intendingfundamental change must go beyond these formulations. See Lisa Callahan et al., In-sanity Defense Reform in the United States—Post-Hinckley, 11 MENTAL & PHYSICALDISABILITY L. REP. 54, 54-60 (1987) (surveying insanity defense reform movementsacross the United States after Hinckley’s successful use of the insanity defense in histrial for shooting President Reagan).

86See infra app. B, at tbl.B.1 (showing a bypass rate of 0.39% for the insanity de-

fense; the next highest bypass rate for a defense was 0.16% for entrapment).87

Infra app. B, at tbl.B.1. Among the six defenses studied, insanity was secondonly to statutes of limitations (0.15%) for the rate of nonprosecution. Infra app. B, attbl.B.1.


89Respondents 55,585, 55,724, and 55,738.

90Respondent 55,738.

91See Cohen et al., supra note 1, at 969-70 (reporting results of a survey of Tennes-

see judges, prosecutors, and defense lawyers that examined the use, success, and out-comes associated with the insanity defense); Silver et al., supra note 75, at 67 (reporting


whelming burden on the system. As the above-quoted respondentnoted, the insanity defense is subject to more external factors thanother defenses studied here. With that in mind, further study of theimpact of those factors on the use of the defense is necessary beforeeffective reforms can be adopted.

G. Reasonable Mistake of Law92

Many states seem to believe that the integrity of their legal codesdemands rejection of the reasonable mistake of law defense.93 An-other concern is that such a defense would be “easy to claim and hardto disprove.”94 However, no empirical research has been conductedon whether the existence of a reasonable mistake of law defense hasthe dangerous slippery slope effect that its critics fear.95 While a fewstates recognize such a defense in broad terms,96 a number of otherjurisdictions provide a limited form of the defense when a law has notbeen made public (six state jurisdictions) or an individual relied onan official misstatement of the law (twenty-three state jurisdictions).97

Respondents saw the defense raised in 0.12% of cases, and it wassuccessful 24.88% of the time.98 Prosecutors and defense attorneysreported higher rates at which the defense was offered as compared to

results from a study of the insanity defense in eight states).92

The applicable rules for the states surveyed are: ARK. CODE ANN. § 5-2-206 (Mi-chie 1997) (providing that a mistake of law defense is available if a person relied onofficial misstatement or if it is relevant to the requisite mental state); COL. REV. STAT. §18-1-504 (2003) (permitting a mistake of fact defense if it negates the requisite mensrea); OR. REV. STAT. §§ 161.095, 161.115(4) (2003) (providing that a mistake of law orfact is irrelevant “unless the statute clearly so provides,” however, a person must actwith a “culpable mental state with respect to each material element” of a crime in or-der to be found guilty); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 939.43 (West 1996) (“An honest error . . . isa defense if it negatives the existence of a state of mind essential to the crime.”); Hop-kins v. State, 69 A.2d 456, 460 (Md. 1949) (refusing to recognize a mistake of law de-fense, even if a defendant relied on a state attorney’s interpretation of the law).

93See, e.g., People v. Marrero, 507 N.E.2d 1068, 1069-70 (N.Y. 1987) (mentioning

fear of encouraging ignorance of the law as one reason for not allowing the defense).94

ROBINSON & CAHILL, supra note 44 (manuscript at ch2-4).95

Marrero, 507 N.E.2d at 1069.96

See, e.g., N.J. STAT. ANN. § 2C:2-4(c)(3) (West 2004) (authorizing the use of thedefense when “[t]he actor . . . diligently pursues all means available to ascertain themeaning and application of the offense to his conduct and honestly and in good faithconcludes his conduct is not an offense”); WIS. STAT. ANN. § 939.43 (West 1996) (“Anhonest error . . . is a defense if it negatives the existence of a state of mind essential tothe crime.”).

972 PAUL H. ROBINSON, CRIMINAL LAW DEFENSES §§ 182(a)-83(a) (1984).



that observed by judges (0.30% and 0.42% versus 0.04%).99 That re-spondent judges rarely saw this defense may indicate that it played arole in disposing of cases before they had a chance to go before ajudge. Since the defense is unlikely to be offered with regard to majorcrimes, prosecutors may offer more generous pleas to defendants whocommit honest mistakes. Since a plea would be different than non-prosecution, this may also explain why so few prosecutors (0.05%) sawthe defense as resulting in nonprosecution.100

Robinson and Cahill raise an additional concern that

[r]ecent years have seen a dramatic increase in the number of criminaloffenses that punish minor or obscure regulatory infractions . . . many ofthem carry[ing] the potential for serious punishment. . . . [W]hen cou-pled with a refusal to acknowledge that these numerous and complexrules are not intuitive or well-known and that otherwise law-abiding peo-ple might violate them without realizing it, a great risk arises that unjustliability will be imposed frequently.

101

The ever increasing number of regulatory “crimes” increases the like-lihood that individuals will be charged with crimes that bear no rela-tionship to social morals and are not readily understood as crimes byan ordinary person.102 While it may be going too far to grant blanketacquittals for reasonable mistakes, a formulation of the rule that de-criminalizes certain offenses when a reasonable mistake of law isproven may be more reasonable in these circumstances. Given thecurrent absence of any indication of a slippery slope effect, such acompromise would allow civil punishment while reserving the weightof criminal sanctions for more deserving culprits.

III. CONSTITUTIONAL EVIDENTIARY PROVISIONS

The U.S. Constitution affords defendants a number of rights toprotect them from undue influence from authorities and invasions ofprivacy.103 Survey questions on these issues were formulated differ-

99Infra app. E, at tbl.E.1.


101ROBINSON & CAHILL, supra note 44 (manuscript at ch2-5).

102Id. For further discussion of regulatory crimes’ relationship (or lack thereof)

to social morals, see Stuart P. Green, Why It’s a Crime to Tear the Tag off a Mattress: Over-criminalization and the Moral Content of Regulatory Offenses, 46 EMORY L.J. 1533 (1997).

103See, e.g., U.S. CONST. amends. I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VIII (enshrining numerous

individual rights); see also Fred H. Cate, The Changing Face of Privacy Protection in theEuropean Union and the United States, 33 IND. L. REV. 173, 198-201 (1999) (discussing thehigh value placed on the right to privacy in America and the limited exceptions to this


ently than those on the above defenses since, in practice, they are notdefenses, but rather are issues that usually arise in pre-trial motions.Other studies have sought to quantify the success of such motions insuppressing evidence and to demonstrate the relationship betweensuccessful motions and trial outcomes.104 This survey attempts todemonstrate the latter by allowing respondents to estimate how oftenthey believe successful exclusions led to dismissal, acquittal, or non-prosecution.105

A. Fourth Amendment and the Exclusionary Rule

The Fourth Amendment protects the “right of the people to besecure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreason-able searches and seizures,”106 and it shields the innocent and guiltyalike from government intrusion into their private lives. The exclu-sionary rule is an extension of the Fourth Amendment and bars theadmission of evidence at trial that was illegally obtained by authori-ties.107 Furthermore, under the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine,any subsequent evidence of wrongdoing that is discovered as a resultof an illegal search is also excluded.108 The rule is meant to deter po-lice from violating individual rights109 and serves to maintain the in-

right).104

See W. ROBERT BURKHART ET AL., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, THE EFFECTS OF THEEXCLUSIONARY RULE: A STUDY IN CALIFORNIA 18 (1982) (assessing the effects of theexclusionary rule); Thomas Y. Davies, A Hard Look at What We Know (and Still Need toLearn) About the “Costs” of the Exclusionary Rule: The NIJ Study and Other Studies of “Cost”Arrests, 1983 AM. B. FOUND. RES. J. 611, 621 (stating that the exclusionary rule led tononprosecution and/or nonconviction in between 0.6% and 2.35% of felony arrests inthose jurisdictions under study); Nardulli, supra note 3, at 590-94 (reviewing case filesto find correlations between successful motions and acquittals); Stephen J. Schulhofer,Miranda’s Practical Effect: Substantial Benefits and Vanishingly Small Social Costs, in THEMIRANDA DEBATE 191-92 (Richard A. Leo & George C. Thomas III eds., 1998) (examin-ing, empirically, the detectable harm the exclusionary rule causes to law enforcement).

105See infra app. A.

106U.S. CONST. amend. IV.

107The United States Supreme Court established the exclusionary rule in 1914,

Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383, 398 (1914), and extended it to the states in 1961,Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643, 655 (1961).

108 See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 487-88 (1963) (stating that keyevidence obtained by illegal searches was “come at by the exploitation of that illegality”and was therefore inadmissible).

109See Mapp, 367 U.S. at 656 (“[T]he purpose of the exclusionary rule ‘is to de-

ter—to compel respect for the constitutional guaranty in the only effectively availableway—by removing the incentive to disregard it.’” (quoting Elkins v. United States, 364U.S. 206, 217 (1960))).


tegrity of the judicial process by preventing courts from endorsing aconstitutional violation.110

While the Fourth Amendment protects all Americans, the exclu-sionary rule only comes into consideration when there is evidence of acrime. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the exclusion ofevidence under the rule is not a constitutional right but a necessarymechanism for ensuring that government authorities respect the Con-stitution.111 Previous studies have shown that the exclusionary rule hashad a significant impact on convictions and have raised concerns as tothe toll that Fourth Amendment search and seizure challenges haveon law enforcement.112

This survey differs from previous studies because, instead of focus-ing on statistical correlations, it asked respondents to evaluate directlinks between excluded evidence and acquittals based on their per-ceptions of the cases they handle.113 Respondents reported that asuppression motion was made in 7.34% of all cases, led to acquittal ordismissal in 11.62% of the cases where the motion was made, and re-sulted in nonprosecution in an additional 0.69% of cases.114 These re-sponses suggest that there could be a significant number of lost con-victions due to Fourth Amendment challenges and add fuel to thedebate concerning the best way to deter government abuse of individ-ual rights without impeding the capture and conviction of criminals.

110See Thomas S. Schrock & Robert C. Welsh, Up from Calandra: The Exclusionary

Rule as a Constitutional Requirement, 59 MINN. L. REV. 251, 257-60 (1974) (explainingthe judicial integrity rationale).

111See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 348 (1974) (holding that the exclu-

sionary rule is a “judicially created remedy . . . rather than a personal constitutionalright”).

112In the early 1980s, Peter Nardulli studied 7500 individual case files and

counted the number of Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment suppression motions filedand the success rates of those motions. Nardulli, supra note 3, at 590-92. His studyfound that 5% of cases had motions filed to suppress physical evidence and that 17%of these motions were successful. Id. at 593, 595 tbl.2, 596. In cases where the sup-pression motion was granted, the study further found that 78% of persons who suc-ceeded in getting the evidence excluded were later acquitted at trial. Id. at 600, 601tbl.12. A study conducted in California from 1976 through 1979 found that in 4.8% ofthe cases rejected by prosecutors’ offices, the prosecutors cited search and seizureproblems as the primary cause of rejection. BURKHART ET AL., supra note 104, at 10.Of those released due to such search and seizure concerns in 1976 and 1977, 45.8%were arrested again within a two-year follow-up period. Id. at 16 tbl.7.

113Infra app. A.



B. Fifth Amendment and Miranda Warnings

The Constitution provides that no person “shall be compelled inany criminal case to be a witness against himself.”115 In 1966, the Su-preme Court sought to safeguard this privilege against self-incrimination when it held in Miranda v. Arizona that “the prosecutionmay not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpatory, stem-ming from custodial interrogation of the defendant unless it demon-strates the use of procedural safeguards effective to secure the privi-lege against self-incrimination.”116 Debate immediately ensued as towhether the convictions lost under the new rule outweighed the bene-fit of having the constitutional safeguard.117

While the empirical costs of the Miranda rule are hotly debated,118

this survey found that the motions were made in 3.97% of cases andsucceeded 9.86% of the time.119 As with the discussion of the FourthAmendment, the data from this survey add to the debate as to

115U.S. CONST. amend. V.

116Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 444 (1966). The safeguards were set forth by

the Court as follows:Prior to any questioning, the person must be warned that he has a right toremain silent, that any statement he does make may be used as evidenceagainst him, and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, either re-tained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights,provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. If, how-ever, he indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishesto consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning.

Id. at 444-45.117

See, e.g., THE MIRANDA DEBATE, supra note 104 (presenting essays debating thevalue of the rule). Subsequent decisions have refined and softened the rule, but it hasweathered numerous challenges, and, following the 2000 decision in United States v.Dickerson, 530 U.S. 428 (2000), it seems highly unlikely that it will be overturned. YaleKamisar, Foreward: From Miranda to § 3501 to Dickerson to . . ., 99 MICH. L. REV. 879,885-92, 896-97 (2001).

118While Professor Cassell tentatively finds that after Miranda a reduction in the

number of confessions led to an overall loss of as many as 3.8% of all convictions, Cas-sell, supra note 104, at 437-38, Professor Schulhofer finds it to be at most 0.78%,Schulhofer, supra note 104, at 192. One study of burglary and theft found that lessthan 4% of cases had exclusionary problems involving a confession. FLOYD FEENEY ETAL., U.S. DEP’T OF JUSTICE, ARRESTS WITHOUT CONVICTION: HOW OFTEN THEY OCCURAND WHY 144 (1983). The Nardulli study found that motions to suppress confessionswere filed in 6.6% of all cases and were successful in 2.3% of cases. Nardulli, supranote 3, at 595 tbl.2, 596, 597 tbl.7. In cases where the motion to suppress a confessionwas granted, the study found that 41.7% were acquitted at trial as opposed to 12.4%acquitted when the motion was denied. Id. at 601 tbl.12. However, it should be notedthat only twelve motions to suppress were granted, compared with 458 denied, thuslimiting the significance of this comparison. Id.



whether the costs of the rule outweigh the benefits. Future reformmeasures may need to address both the number of times the defenseis raised and its rate of success.

C. Sixth Amendment Identification Procedures

Protections surrounding identification procedures are based onthe fact that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable.120 Identifi-cation challenges seek to exclude unreliable rather than ill-gotten butreliable evidence, and they can be raised at various points during atrial.121 Nonetheless, there is a lively debate as to how to properlysafeguard defendants from faulty eyewitness testimony.122

Respondents to this survey reported an even lower occurrence ofidentification suppression motions (1.20%)123 than found elsewhere,124

120See Stanley Z. Fisher & Ian McKenzie, A Miscarriage of Justice in Massachusetts:

Eyewitness Identification Procedures, Unrecorded Admissions, and a Comparison with EnglishLaw, 13 B.U. PUB. INT. L.J. 1, 3 (2003) (asserting that problems with eyewitness identi-fication are “well known”); Benjamin E. Rosenberg, Rethinking the Right to Due Process inConnection with Pretrial Identification Procedures: An Analysis and a Proposal, 79 KY. L.J.259, 260-61 (1990) (noting various concerns regarding eyewitness reliability). Forensicscience offers substantial evidence of the dangers associated with eyewitness testimony:studies have shown that in 85% of cases where DNA evidence has overturned a convic-tion, eyewitness testimony played a critical role in the conviction. Lisa Steele, TryingIdentification Cases: An Outline for Raising Eyewitness ID Issues, CHAMPION, Nov. 2004, at8, available at http://www.nacdl.org/public.nsf/01c1e7698280d20385256d0b00789923/9973f3ec244ba99685256f6a00558f39?opendocument; see also Winn S. Collins, LooksCan Be Deceiving: Safeguards for Eyewitness Identification, WIS. LAW., Mar. 2004, at 8 (dis-cussing several cases where misidentification led to convictions that were later over-turned on DNA evidence), available at http://www.wisbar.org/wislawmag/2004/03/collins.html.

121See Steele, supra note 120, at 8 (discussing the “seven places where counsel can

raise eyewitness issues”).122

See, e.g., Edward Stein, The Admissibility of Expert Testimony About Cognitive ScienceResearch on Eyewitness Identification, 2 LAW, PROBABILITY & RISK 295, 295 (2003) (analyz-ing whether and when courts should allow experts to testify about memory and cogni-tion problems relating to eyewitness identifications); Scott Woller, Note, Rethinking theRole of Expert Testimony Regarding the Reliability of Eyewitness Identifications in New York, 48N.Y.L. SCH. L. REV. 323, 323-24 (2003) (arguing that New York should adopt a newstandard on the admissibility of expert testimony on eyewitness identifications).


124The Nardulli study found that motions to suppress on Sixth Amendment iden-

tification procedure grounds were filed in 4.8% of all cases, and the motion wasgranted 1.6% of the time. Nardulli, supra note 3, at 594, 595 tbl.2, 596, 597 tbl.7. Thestudy further found that 16.7% of persons who succeeded in getting the identificationsuppressed were later acquitted at trial. Id. at 600, 601 tbl.12. However, this statistic isderived from one lost conviction out of six cases, and therefore may be misleading.


and a success rate of 5.75% for such motions.125 These low figures aresomewhat surprising considering the recent studies that link eyewit-ness testimony to erroneous convictions that are later overturned byDNA evidence.126 Despite the weight of studies showing how unreli-able such evidence can be, the low success rate gives practicing lawyerslittle incentive to pursue these motions. Further corroborating studiesmight suggest a need for reform.

D. Overall Effect of the Fourth, Fifth, and SixthAmendment Exclusionary Rules

Many critics argue that the number of cases “lost” to these rules isso negligible that the benefit to society must surely outweigh thecost.127 Indeed, one extensive study of the exclusionary rule in Cali-fornia found that it almost never led to the exclusion of evidence incases involving non-drug crimes.128 However, the reported recidivismrates suggest that these may not be harmless individuals who pose lit-tle threat to society.129 Studies, including this one, remind us thatthese rules do result in lost convictions of criminals and should en-courage us to reevaluate whether this loss is tolerable in order to deterinvasions of privacy.

These rules also have a practical impact on the criminal justice sys-tem: the administrative cost of dealing with these motions is high.Some respondents complained that motions to suppress evidence aremade in almost every case on any number of issues and may be madeto irk the prosecutor, buy time, or as a means of protecting the de-fense attorney from later accusations of malpractice.130 The issue,therefore, requires consideration beyond whether it releases blame-worthy individuals into society. If it raises the costs of the administra-tion of justice and adds to the already overburdened criminal justicesystem, then injustice may be propagated in other ways.

Anecdotal evidence from this survey suggests that some prosecu-tors have taken matters into their own hands. One respondent prose-


126See supra note 120.

127See Davies, supra note 104, at 689 (arguing that studies on the issue show the

real world effects of the defense to be negligible); Nardulli, supra note 3, at 606-09 (ar-guing that the exclusionary rule’s “marginal effect on the criminal court system” indi-cates that the current system’s benefits may outweigh its costs).

128Davies, supra note 104, at 645.

129BURKHART ET AL., supra note 104, at 15.

130Respondents 55,555, 55,570, 55,607, 55,655, and 55,754.


cutor stated that “if I have to bring in witnesses for motions hearings Iwill withdraw all [plea] offers.”131 This sentiment was echoed by sev-eral other respondent prosecutors, who noted the need for suchmeasures in the face of daunting caseloads,132 and defense attorneys,who lamented its chilling effect on constitutional rights.133 ThisComment by no means calls for abolishing the protections, but ratheracknowledges that problems exist and hopes that reforms are ex-plored.134

IV. PLEA NEGOTIATIONS

Plea negotiations are one of the most important and prevalentfeatures of modern criminal law, with 95% of all felony convictions instate cases arising from guilty pleas.135 Respondents commented onthe role of plea negotiations more often than anything else studied.This survey found pleas offered at an overall rate of 94.03%,136 withprosecutors and defense attorneys encountering plea offers at similarrates of 96.81% and 97.62% of cases, while judges perceive such offersin 90.06% of cases.137 Of those cases where some form of plea was of-fered, the acceptance rate estimated by judges, prosecutors, and de-fense attorneys was close to the overall average of 85.28%.138

One of the more interesting findings of this survey is not the rateof plea bargains itself, but rather the breakdown of the outcomes ofthe pleas. This survey divided plea results into three categories: thosewho pled guilty to a lesser charge (and therefore received a shortersentence); those who pled guilty to the charge but were offered leni-


132Respondents 55,560, 55,566, and 55,674.


134See generally AKHIL REED AMAR, THE CONSTITUTION AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE

(1997) (giving an overview of criminal procedure and offering sound philosophicalframeworks for reform).

135BUREAU OF JUSTICE STATISTICS, U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE, BULLETIN NCJ 198821,

FELONY SENTENCES IN STATE COURTS 9 tbl.10 (2003), available at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/fssc00.pdf; see also RALPH ADAM FINE, ESCAPE OF THEGUILTY 3 (1986) (estimating that between 75% and 90% of felonies are pled out); THEREAL WAR ON CRIME: THE REPORT OF THE NATIONAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE COMMISSION182 (Steven R. Donziger ed., 1996) (estimating the rate of felony cases pled out insome form to be over 90%).



138Compare infra app. E, at tbl.E.3, with infra app. B, at tbl.B.3. The survey did not

ask about the outcome of those cases in which a defendant did not accept the plea of-fer.


ency in sentencing; and those whose charges were dropped. Assum-ing these categories are mutually exclusive, the sum of these threecategories should represent 100% of the accepted pleas in this survey.However, the three categories add up to 139%, indicating that there isoverlap between the categories.139 There are a number of factors thatcould cause this overlap. For example, respondents in the survey of-ten commented that judges are not bound by any recommendationsfor leniency made by prosecutors.140 Thus, a defendant has no guar-antee that she will receive a lesser sentence upon pleading guilty to alesser charge. Further, a defendant may be charged with severalcrimes and the plea may encompass dropping some charges com-pletely, lowering the grade of some charges, and/or asking for leni-ency on certain charges.141

Finally, for 10.89% of reported defendants, a plea offer resulted innonprosecution.142 This question was formulated broadly to encom-pass cases where pleas led to charges being dropped for any reason:immunity in exchange for testimony, alternative dispute resolution,and other such circumstances.143 With overcrowded prisons a persis-tent problem,144 these reported arrangements may reflect a growingrole for alternative sentencing and present an opportunity to developa sentencing scheme aimed at rehabilitation instead of expanding theprison system.

V. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS

A. The Results of the District Court Survey

The reported results of the Maryland district court, which has ju-risdiction over misdemeanor and certain felony cases, differed greatlyfrom the other results.145 Respondent Maryland district court judges


140Respondents 55,789, 55,802, 55,810, and 55,956.

141Respondents 55,585 (discussing practice of pleading to one count in exchange

for dropping a second) and 55,607 (noting that a prosecutor respondent will dropspeeding charges in exchange for a guilty plea to driving while intoxicated).


143Anecdotally, some respondents indicated that they included alternative reme-

dies in this category, e.g., counseling or rehabilitation programs upon the completionof which charges may be dropped or the defendant’s record expunged.

144See generally Alfred Blumstein et al., Mass Incarceration: Perspectives on U.S. Impris-

onment, 7 U. CHI. L. SCH. ROUNDTABLE 91 (2000) (discussing the “incarceration crisis”in the United States and the problems it causes).

145Even though the sample size is much smaller in this category than others, see


saw an average of 2073 criminal cases per year, compared with 450 forMaryland circuit court judges. While statute of limitations and rea-sonable mistake of law defenses arose much more often in the districtcourts,146 the other defenses studied appeared much less often.147

These results may indicate that certain defenses arise more often infelony versus misdemeanor cases and vice versa. Further research onthese differences would be valuable in understanding the overall ef-fect of reforming criminal defenses.

B. Role of the Defenses and Claims in Plea Bargains

Prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges all cited their heavycaseloads as a determining factor in many of their plea decisions (i.e.,their decisions about what and how to plead).148 As such, many re-spondents noted that the defenses studied play a significant role inplea bargaining.149 As one respondent commented, the “existence of avalid defense in a case is most potent at charging if it is brought to theattention of the prosecutor issuing the charges.”150 Likewise, defenseattorneys noted that a good defense was a strong bargaining chip.151

One attorney summed up the situation: “In our jurisdiction, most (byfar) cases are resolved by plea agreement. Defenses are raised by ne-gotiation much more than litigation. Counsel then evaluate [the]strength of defenses and then adjust the ‘value’ of the case accord-ingly.”152

infra app. C (showing n values—i.e., the number of respondents for each category—foreach state), it provides some indication of possible differences.

146Compare infra app. F, at tbl.F.7 (showing statute of limitation defenses arising in

0.42% of cases heard by district court judges and only 0.21% of cases heard by circuitcourt judges), with infra app. E, at tbl.E.1 (showing statute of limitation defenses aris-ing in 0.18% of cases heard by judges, excluding Maryland district court judges); infraapp. F, at tbl.F.7 (showing mistake of law defenses arising in 0.11% of cases heard bydistrict court judges and only 0.07% of cases heard by circuit court judges), with infraapp. E, at tbl.E.1 (showing mistake of law defenses arising in 0.04% of cases heard byjudges, excluding Maryland district court judges).

147Compare, e.g., infra app. F, at tbl.F.7 (showing insanity defenses arising in 1.05%

of cases heard by circuit court judges and 0.33% of cases heard by district courtjudges), with infra app. E, at tbl.E.1 (showing insanity defenses arising in 0.90% of casesheard by judges, excluding Maryland district court judges).

148Respondents 55,560, 55,674, 55,810, and 55,850.

149Respondents 55,568, 55,695, and 55,764.





Taken together, these comments offer some evidence that therole of criminal defenses is shifting from the traditional formal notionof pleadings in court to an informal negotiation where the relativestrength of the particular claim has a proportional influence on theoutcome of a plea bargain. Assuming a defendant pleading guilty to acrime is, to some extent at least, “guilty,” then the defenses seem tohave a justice-promoting effect on making the punishment suit thecrime.153

CONCLUSION

This survey provides information on the use and success rate of anumber of defenses that are infrequent but not irrelevant. The datasuggest interesting correlations between statutory formulation andsuccess rates, lend credence to the stories of an overwhelmed criminaljustice system, and provide insights into how the system is adapting atthe ground level to accommodate an ever increasing burden. As a re-sult, this survey raises questions regarding how the law should changeto meet the challenges of the modern world, particularly in the areasof statue of limitations, double jeopardy, and Sixth Amendment falseidentification claims where new technology has undermined some ofthe traditional justifications for the defenses. While the six criminaldefenses studied each showed low occurrence rates, their existenceand use is notable and important to the discussion of the role of thedefenses in modern criminal law. Constitutional defenses arise fairlyfrequently and, while their ultimate success in exonerating a defen-dant is low, the administrative burden of handling so many motionsmay be significant. As is well known, plea negotiations play an ex-tremely important role in the American criminal justice system, andthe comments of the survey respondents indicate that the criminal de-fenses and constitutional claims studied have an impact on the out-come of plea negotiations. As discussed in Part I of this Comment, al-though this study cannot be generalized to other states and is subjectto potential biases among respondents, the results do provide a firstlook at a number of areas that have not received significant empirical

153Rachel E. Barkow, Recharging The Jury: The Criminal Jury’s Constitutional Role in

an Era of Mandatory Sentencing, 152 U. PA. L. REV. 33, 95-100 (2003) (arguing that pleasapproximate trial outcomes but that sentencing guidelines have upset the process).But see Stephanos Bibas, Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of Trial, 117 HARV. L. REV.2463, 2464 (2004) (rejecting the argument that pleas approximate trial outcomes, ar-guing that various externalities are the most important factors in determining whatpleas are offered, and concluding that this effect results in a miscarriage of justice).


attention. The development of scientific methods and quantitativeanalysis is one of the greatest achievements of modern society; the lawshould be careful not to ignore them.


APPENDIX

The following descriptions are intended to clarify the presentationof results in the tables that follow. As discussed in this Comment,these results convey information on the use of the studied defensesamong the respondents in the states surveyed. The results should notbe viewed as representative of any other population.

Description of Terms Used:

Regarding All Tables:

“n”Reported “n” values represent the total number of respondents

who provided answers to a given question. Respondents sometimesanswered only two or three of the four parts of the question; hence,there is a slightly different response rate for each question.

“Median”The median represents the median answer given by all respon-

dents to a particular question.

Regarding the Tables on Criminal Defenses and Constitutional Claims:

Respondents were asked to report the number of cases during theprevious twelve months in which they saw each defense or constitu-tional claim. These numbers were aggregated and converted intopercentages based on the total number of cases seen by all defendants.

“Offered”In how many criminal cases was the following defense raised?

The percentages reported were calculated by dividing all reportedoccurrences of the defense by the total number of cases seen by re-spondents who responded to the question.


“Successful”In how many of these cases was the claim successful?

The percentages reported were calculated by dividing all reportedsuccessful occurrences of the defense by the total number of casesseen by respondents who responded to the question.

It is possible that a defendant can succeed on a constitutionalevidentiary claim on one piece of evidence but be convicted basedon other evidence. Because of this, for the three constitutionalclaims, the question stem was altered to read “Dis-missal/acquittal/nonprosecution under [X amendment].” Thischange was made so that respondents would equate success of the mo-tion with the case being dismissed or person acquitted rather thanwith the evidence being excluded.

“Success Rate”The percentages reported were calculated by dividing the total re-

ported number of times a defense was successful by the total reportednumber of times the defense was offered.

“Bypassed”In how many cases could the claim have been offered but was not?

The percentages reported were calculated by dividing all reportedoccurrences of the defense being bypassed by the total number ofcases seen by respondents who responded to the question.

“Not Prosecuted”In how many instances was a case not prosecuted, or a charge dropped in an-ticipation of the defense?

The percentages reported were calculated by dividing all reportedoccurrences of the defense resulting in nonprosecution by the totalnumber of cases seen by respondents who responded to the question.

Regarding the Tables on Plea Bargains:

Respondents were asked to estimate the percentage, rather thanthe raw number, of their cases that involved plea bargains. In order tocompare results among respondents, the responses were convertedinto raw numbers based on the total number of cases seen by a re-spondent. The percentages reported were then calculated by dividing


all reported occurrences of plea bargains by the total number of casesseen by respondents who responded to the question.

“Offered”This represents the percentage of cases in which “a plea bargain

was offered” to a defendant.

“Accepted”This represents the percent of cases in which “a plea bargain was

accepted” by a defendant.

The following three categories represent the outcome of the accepted pleabargains. The percentages reported were calculated by dividing the number ofpleas in the appropriate category (i.e., nonprosecution, reduced sentence, or re-duced charge) by the number of pleas accepted. Thus, if 90 out of 100 plea of-fers were accepted, and 9 of the accepted pleas resulted in nonprosecution, thenthe reported nonprosecution rate would be 10%. As noted in this Comment,the results of these three outcomes add up to more than 100%, indicating thatthere was overlap between the categories.

“Nonprosecution”This represents the number of cases in which an accepted plea

“resulted in nonprosecution.” This question was formulated broadlyso as to include any type of plea that led to nonprosecution, includingimmunity, probation, work release, etc.

“Reduced Sentence”This represents the number of cases in which an accepted plea

“resulted in a reduced sentence.”

“Reduced Charge”This represents the number of cases in which an accepted plea

“resulted in a reduced charge.”


APPENDIX A: SAMPLE SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE


��

�� !�� "�� # �� $

�� %��"&� ��'&��$%�"�' �#��'�&� &��(&��&� ��)&��)��)&��&$�� '&� ��&$��') ��#�"��'��&$�"&� ��%��(&��$ ��( �$&��*+�'��(��,� ��'&� ��#��&$��') ��#�"��'��&$�"&� ��%��$�"&$ ��( ��&��*+�'��(��

---�� &"(��#��( �� # �� ) $�./�%��.�$$�) �&�0 �� '&� /�� /

�� (�.�'&�%�"��'��&$�"&� ��.&��( �#�$$�.�� # �� &�� 12�� (�.�'&�%��#��( � �"&� ��.&��"" ��#�$1�� (�.�'&�%�"&� ��"��$��$&��)$%�(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1�� (�.�'&�%��&�" ��.&��&�"&� �� "�� /��&�"(&�� /�) "&�� (��

� # �� .��$��(&, �) ��## � �1

!$ &� �&��. ��"�$�'�� 3�4�)&� ��"&� ��.(�"(�%��. � �� &$$%��,�$, �/�&��"�$�'��.��3��4�)&� ��"&� ��%��. � �&.&� ��#/�)��,�$, ��.��(/��%��$�"&$ �

��5��6�!��*+��6��6�7��6�8��6

��7��5��13�4�9��7��

3��4�9��6��

�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1


��5��6�!��*+��6��6�7��6�8��6

��7��5��13�4�9��7��

3��4�9��6��

!��"� �� #��$�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

%�� &��'��&��(��

)�� *� ��+� �,��-�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

.�� &��'��&��(��

)�� +�� -�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

/�� &��'��&��(�� !�

)�� -�� # �� .&��&�� 1

2�� # �� .&��"" ��#�$1

�� # �� "��$��(&, �) ��## � ��)��.&��1

��(&�� "�� :�� &��"��&��#�� # �� 1

�0��1��2��3�1�� $��$ &�)&��&��.&��## � �1

��$ &�)&��&��.&��&"" �� 1

��$ &�)&��&�� $� ��;�� "��1

��$ &�)&��&�� $� �� " �� " 1

��$ &�)&��&�� $� �� " ��"(&�� 1

�#�%��.��$��$�0 ��"�'' ��&�%��#��( �&)�, /��## ��&� "��&$�� /��( ��"�'' ��/

�$ &� �� ( ��&" �) $�.��( �)&"0��#��( ��, %��!$ &� �) �� "�#%�.(&�

� # �� %��&� �"�'' ��


APPENDIX B: OVERALL SURVEY RESULTS

The results in Appendix B represent the aggregation of all re-sponses, but exclude responses from the Maryland district courtjudges. As discussed in Part I of this Comment, the unique jurisdic-tional grants of Maryland district courts precluded direct comparisonof Maryland district court judge results with the results from othercourts.

It should be noted that there may be overlap between cases seenby multiple respondents, which may have led to double counting.


Tab

le B

.1:

Ove

rall

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.08

%0.

02%

0.17

%0.

04%

0.87

%0.

37%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.16

%0.

07%

0.12

%0.

02%

n38

715

337

813

538

013

637

815

637

913

537

612

7

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

38%

0.20

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

03%

0.01

%0.

09%

0.02

%0.

21%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.02

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

384

147

375

131

368

130

377

155

373

133

373

126

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

33.6

6%37

.55%

50.7

3%42

.89%

23.5

5%10

.04%

33.3

3%50

.00%

19.6

8%29

.48%

24.8

8%14

.95%

Byp

asse

d0.

16%

0.04

%0.

06%

0.02

%0.

39%

0.20

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.03

%0.

04%

0.01

%

n

30

210

230

710

230

585

314

129

309

106

299

102

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

02%

0.00

%0.

15%

0.01

%0.

12%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.01

%

n

287

106

288

9930

096

300

126

297

108

290

103

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yD

oub

le

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le B

.2:

Ove

rall

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

7.34

%4.

51%

3.97

%2.

48%

1.20

%1.

00%

n36

110

836

410

436

510

3

M

edia

n5.

83%

2.73

%2.

00%

1.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

83%

0.23

%0.

39%

0.06

%0.

07%

0.02

%

n

361

100

364

9936

499

Med

ian

0.42

%0.

21%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

11.6

2%4.

91%

9.86

%2.

33%

5.75

%1.

68%

Byp

asse

d1.

54%

0.81

%0.

99%

1.01

%0.

44%

0.29

%

n

26

871

279

7528

680

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.69

%0.

13%

0.08

%0.

02%

0.03

%0.

00%

n28

481

281

7927

984

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le B

.3:

Ove

rall

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

94.0

3%95

.47%

n37

611

5

M

edia

n99

.00%

98.0

0%

Acc

epte

d85

.28%

87.5

5%

n

369

109

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d10

.89%

5.82

%

n

318

86

M

edia

n3.

00%

2.00

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

64.1

2%70

.94%

n32

290

Med

ian

80.0

0%80

.00%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge64

.33%

66.8

5%

n

345

94

M

edia

n70

.00%

75.0

0%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


APPENDIX C: SURVEY RESULTS BY STATE

The results in Appendix C represent the aggregation of all re-sponses within each individual state. Note that no prosecutors inRhode Island responded to this survey, so the results for Rhode Islandare the combined results of judges and defense attorneys.


Tab

le C

.1:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in A

rkan

sas

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.20

%0.

02%

0.62

%0.

27%

2.30

%1.

50%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.14

%0.

05%

0.08

%0.

01%

n51

1750

1550

1851

2351

1949

18

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

50%

0.11

%0.

73%

0.46

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

01%

0.00

%0.

33%

0.11

%0.

14%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

05%

0.01

%

n

5119

5014

4817

5123

5119

4918

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

4.76

%16

.67%

53.6

4%34

.29%

5.92

%5.

96%

------

20.6

9%13

.33%

56.2

5%50

.00%

Byp

asse

d0.

34%

0.09

%0.

13%

0.20

%0.

17%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

43

1442

1144

1247

2145

1645

18

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

03%

0.01

%0.

34%

0.06

%0.

16%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.04

%

n

4414

4111

4412

4621

4316

4518

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

Lim

itat

ion

sIn

san

ity

Dip

lom

atic

Imm

un

ity

Dou

ble

Je

opar

dy

Rea

son

able

M

ista

ke o

f L

aw


Tab

le C

.2:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in A

rkan

sas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

8.97

4%6.

525%

3.11

8%2.

662%

1.16

0%0.

075%

n49

1349

1350

12

M

edia

n6.

64%

4.17

%1.

18%

0.25

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l1.

786%

0.37

4%0.

070%

0.00

6%0.

034%

0.01

6%

n

499

4911

5011

Med

ian

0.50

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

19.9

0%2.

72%

2.26

%0.

17%

2.89

%15

.38%

Byp

asse

d1.

446%

0.46

5%0.

154%

0.03

4%0.

109%

0.02

5%

n

42

844

1044

11

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.13

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.93

2%0.

318%

0.04

0%0.

007%

0.01

4%0.

006%

n44

844

1043

11

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.28

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

Tab

le C

.3:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in A

rkan

sas

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

97.8

0%96

.08%

n52

14

M

edia

n10

0.00

%10

0.00

%

Acc

epte

d88

.05%

57.9

4%

n

5011

Med

ian

90.0

0%95

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d7.

06%

2.45

%

n

4410

Med

ian

2.25

%1.

50%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

66.9

8%95

.30%

n44

9

M

edia

n80

.00%

90.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge56

.28%

89.4

7%

n

479

Med

ian

60.0

0%80

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le C

.4:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in C

olor

ado

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.04

5%0.

012%

0.14

5%0.

034%

0.35

0%0.

059%

0.00

8%0.

000%

0.20

5%0.

124%

0.16

5%0.

015%

n79

3176

2577

2376

2775

2276

21

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

050%

0.01

7%0.

139%

0.01

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

042%

0.05

8%0.

020%

0.00

1%

n

7828

7525

7123

7627

7222

7521

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%3.

57%

34.2

1%49

.18%

35.3

3%16

.46%

0.00

%---

19.0

5%47

.20%

12.2

0%3.

85%

Byp

asse

d0.

188%

0.00

1%0.

006%

0.00

7%0.

509%

0.14

9%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

067%

0.06

3%0.

008%

0.00

0%

n

60

1357

1656

1361

2258

1759

14

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

006%

0.00

0%0.

066%

0.00

6%0.

017%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

022%

0.00

0%0.

017%

0.00

0%

n

5418

5216

5618

5821

5517

5715

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yD

oub

le

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le C

.5:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in C

olor

ado

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

10.6

47%

8.81

3%8.

620%

7.68

8%3.

160%

2.58

9%

n

7319

7419

7219

Med

ian

9.29

%8.

00%

6.13

%6.

00%

0.03

%1.

00%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

709%

0.33

2%0.

360%

0.08

6%0.

168%

0.02

3%

n

7317

7415

7118

Med

ian

0.50

%0.

16%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

6.66

%3.

72%

4.17

%1.

09%

5.29

%0.

87%

Byp

asse

d1.

747%

3.48

1%3.

095%

6.18

5%2.

041%

0.83

4%

n

49

1053

1155

13

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.23

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.64

3%0.

072%

0.03

6%0.

010%

0.01

8%0.

000%

n47

1449

1350

14

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le C

.6:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in C

olor

ado

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

97.0

4%93

.33%

n75

21

M

edia

n99

.00%

96.5

0%

Acc

epte

d89

.85%

90.7

4%

n

7521

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d5.

19%

3.17

%

n

6715

Med

ian

2.00

%1.

00%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

75.2

8%66

.30%

n68

18

M

edia

n90

.00%

87.5

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge77

.22%

66.8

9%

n

7219

Med

ian

87.5

0%89

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le C

.7:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in M

aryl

and

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.05

%0.

01%

0.11

%0.

02%

0.63

%0.

26%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.15

%0.

06%

0.12

%0.

00%

n76

2476

2075

1876

2276

1876

18

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

50%

0.28

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.01

%0.

16%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.01

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

7523

7620

7517

7622

7618

7618

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

5.00

%0.

00%

67.8

2%82

.35%

25.8

7%12

.47%

50.0

0%33

.33%

31.5

8%22

.68%

13.4

8%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

04%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

16%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

64

1464

1363

1165

1864

1362

15

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

11%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

6215

6514

6413

6318

6414

6215

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Rea

son

able

M

ista

ke o

f L

awIn

san

ity

Dip

lom

atic

Imm

un

ity

Dou

ble

Je

opar

dy


Tab

le C

.8:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in M

aryl

and

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

8.69

%5.

39%

3.96

%0.

46%

1.44

%0.

86%

n69

1472

1472

13

M

edia

n10

.00%

5.50

%1.

50%

0.18

%0.

01%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l1.

10%

0.41

%0.

44%

0.03

%0.

04%

0.06

%

n

6714

7014

7112

Med

ian

0.50

%0.

40%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

12.9

1%7.

61%

11.0

4%6.

66%

2.92

%6.

36%

Byp

asse

d2.

81%

0.36

%0.

87%

0.17

%0.

16%

0.01

%

n

53

857

1058

9

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.84

%0.

21%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

01%

n61

1160

1159

10

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re6t

h A

men

dm

ent

Iden

tifi

cati

on

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

Tab

le C

.9:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in M

aryl

and

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

94.9

5%97

.64%

n76

14

M

edia

n98

.00%

98.5

0%

Acc

epte

d73

.70%

79.9

4%

n

7413

Med

ian

81.2

5%85

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d9.

74%

13.8

3%

n

639

Med

ian

5.00

%15

.00%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

55.4

2%77

.66%

n65

9

M

edia

n65

.00%

70.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge49

.62%

62.8

5%

n

699

Med

ian

60.0

0%70

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le C

.10:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in O

rego

n

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.22

4%0.

058%

0.20

2%0.

087%

0.84

9%1.

368%

0.01

3%0.

006%

0.15

9%0.

063%

0.24

4%0.

074%

n49

2249

2250

2649

2349

2549

21

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

41%

0.27

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

19%

0.04

%0.

095%

0.03

5%0.

286%

0.07

6%0.

008%

0.00

4%0.

036%

0.00

9%0.

078%

0.01

5%

n

5023

5020

4923

5023

4623

4821

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

85.9

8%84

.78%

47.9

2%37

.58%

33.6

6%5.

10%

66.6

7%60

.00%

21.0

5%13

.64%

31.8

6%20

.45%

Byp

asse

d0.

415%

0.09

5%0.

257%

0.06

3%0.

790%

0.34

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

011%

0.00

4%0.

115%

0.02

6%

n

39

1943

1840

1741

1839

1836

17

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

050%

0.01

1%0.

156%

0.03

4%0.

395%

0.03

2%0.

046%

0.02

3%0.

067%

0.01

3%0.

213%

0.05

8%

n

4019

4018

4018

3918

4019

3817

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yE

ntr

apm

ent

Stat

ute

of

Lim

itat

ion

sD

oub

le

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le C

.11:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in O

rego

n

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

5.07

5%6.

775%

2.05

7%3.

265%

0.47

9%0.

144%

n48

2147

1949

20

M

edia

n3.

69%

2.04

%1.

33%

1.00

%0.

00%

0.04

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

706%

0.33

8%0.

167%

0.07

6%0.

058%

0.01

2%

n

4818

4819

5019

Med

ian

0.42

%0.

30%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

13.9

1%4.

18%

8.13

%2.

32%

12.1

2%7.

73%

Byp

asse

d1.

029%

0.34

5%0.

549%

0.45

1%0.

058%

0.04

0%

n

35

1335

1338

15

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.33

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

1.15

8%0.

499%

0.29

4%0.

056%

0.04

4%0.

008%

n39

1437

1438

16

M

edia

n0.

31%

0.25

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le C

.12:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in O

rego

n

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

90.0

5%88

.65%

n48

20

M

edia

n98

.25%

99.0

0%

Acc

epte

d84

.53%

78.8

9%

n

4819

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d11

.43%

10.2

2%

n

3913

Med

ian

5.00

%5.

00%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

63.7

1%62

.64%

n43

18

M

edia

n75

.00%

72.5

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge59

.12%

72.1

4%

n

4419

Med

ian

60.0

0%70

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le C

.13:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in R

hode

Isl

and

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.17

9%0.

000%

0.26

9%0.

000%

0.53

8%0.

048%

0.00

0%0.

000%

1.43

4%0.

024%

0.53

8%0.

000%

n12

212

212

312

312

312

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

09%

0.00

%0.

269%

0.00

0%0.

179%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

269%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%

n

122

122

123

123

123

123

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

50.0

0%---

100.

00%

---33

.33%

0.00

%---

---18

.75%

0.00

%0.

00%

---

Byp

asse

d0.

100%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

193%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%

n

11

211

212

311

210

211

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

529%

0.00

0%0.

201%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

201%

0.02

7%0.

000%

0.00

0%

n

102

112

123

112

112

102

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yD

oub

le

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le C

.14:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in R

hode

Isl

and

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

5.73

5%0.

000%

0.80

6%0.

000%

0.09

0%0.

000%

n12

212

212

2

M

edia

n2.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l2.

240%

0.00

0%0.

179%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%

n

122

122

112

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

39.0

6%---

22.2

2%---

0.00

%---

Byp

asse

d1.

506%

0.00

0%0.

402%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%

n

11

111

111

1

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.90

4%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

000%

n11

111

111

1

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le C

.15:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in R

hode

Isl

and

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

98.4

0%95

.26%

n11

3

M

edia

n10

0.00

%99

.00%

Acc

epte

d86

.27%

84.3

8%

n

112

Med

ian

90.0

0%91

.50%

No

t P

rose

cute

d24

.24%

0.17

%

n

102

Med

ian

4.00

%1.

50%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

72.7

4%85

.75%

n9

2

M

edia

n90

.00%

52.5

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge79

.24%

89.4

3%

n

92

Med

ian

75.0

0%85

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le C

.16:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in W

isco

nsin

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.02

9%0.

010%

0.06

9%0.

007%

0.82

4%0.

249%

0.00

3%0.

000%

0.13

0%0.

051%

0.06

3%0.

013%

n12

057

115

5111

648

114

5811

648

114

46

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

59%

0.36

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

027%

0.00

3%0.

260%

0.05

2%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

015%

0.00

6%0.

020%

0.00

2%

n

118

5211

250

113

4711

257

116

4811

345

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.13

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

4.55

%7.

27%

39.5

6%40

.00%

30.7

1%20

.74%

0.00

%---

11.4

9%12

.60%

31.7

1%12

.50%

Byp

asse

d0.

045%

0.04

3%0.

012%

0.00

0%0.

419%

0.26

5%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

032%

0.01

8%0.

042%

0.00

9%

n

85

4090

4290

2989

4893

4086

36

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

022%

0.00

0%0.

145%

0.00

6%0.

135%

0.00

6%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

155%

0.00

1%0.

044%

0.00

2%

n

7738

7938

8432

8346

8440

7836

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yD

oub

le

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le C

.17:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in W

isco

nsin

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

5.65

6%1.

896%

3.14

5%1.

165%

0.63

2%0.

115%

n11

039

110

3711

037

Med

ian

4.41

%2.

14%

1.67

%0.

55%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

476%

0.10

0%0.

548%

0.05

6%0.

063%

0.00

4%

n

112

4011

138

111

37

M

edia

n0.

34%

0.13

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

% S

ucc

ess

Rat

e8.

93%

5.42

%17

.80%

5.00

%10

.02%

3.70

%

Byp

asse

d0.

857%

0.40

8%0.

592%

0.15

5%0.

144%

0.04

3%

n

78

3179

3080

31

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.34

0%0.

059%

0.05

6%0.

029%

0.03

6%0.

001%

n82

3380

3078

32

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le C

.18:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in W

isco

nsin

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

92.4

9%98

.53%

n11

443

Med

ian

99.0

0%98

.00%

Acc

epte

d89

.70%

93.7

2%

n

111

43

M

edia

n92

.75%

91.5

0%

No

t P

rose

cute

d6.

89%

3.83

%

n

9337

Med

ian

2.00

%1.

25%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

62.3

6%71

.07%

n94

34

M

edia

n80

.00%

80.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge69

.79%

61.8

1%

n

104

36

M

edia

n70

.50%

60.0

0%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


APPENDIX D: SURVEY RESULTS BY AREA TYPE

The results in Appendix D represent the aggregation of all re-sponses within each individual area type (i.e., Urban, Suburban, Ru-ral, or Mixed). These characterizations are based on the self-reporting of respondents. The tables titled “Urban,” “Suburban,” and“Rural” contain all respondents who selected one of those categoriesas describing the area from which most of their cases originate. Thetables titled “Mix” contain all respondents who selected more thanone of these categories.

It should be noted that there may be overlap between cases seenby multiple respondents, which may have led to double counting.


Tab

le D

.1:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in U

rban

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.19

%0.

02%

0.12

%0.

04%

0.79

%0.

48%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.14

%0.

09%

0.16

%0.

01%

n92

2989

2688

2589

3088

2486

22

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

33%

0.15

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

08%

0.01

%0.

07%

0.01

%0.

26%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.03

%0.

06%

0.00

%

n

9230

8926

8624

8930

8624

8522

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

45.6

8%54

.05%

58.3

3%37

.01%

31.5

4%4.

76%

66.6

7%50

.00%

17.8

6%38

.92%

36.2

1%25

.00%

Byp

asse

d0.

45%

0.06

%0.

18%

0.02

%1.

16%

0.31

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.05

%0.

12%

0.01

%

n

75

2076

2074

1777

2875

2271

20

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

06%

0.00

%0.

13%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

23%

0.00

%0.

18%

0.01

%

n

7025

7021

7420

7328

7221

7021

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yD

oub

le

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le D

.2:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in U

rban

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

10.0

06%

4.18

4%4.

861%

2.43

1%1.

272%

0.57

0%

n

8221

8319

8418

Med

ian

10.7

1%6.

00%

4.00

%1.

43%

0.00

%0.

05%

Su

cces

sfu

l1.

372%

0.17

0%0.

201%

0.04

2%0.

032%

0.00

9%

n

8119

8316

8517

Med

ian

0.40

%0.

34%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

13.6

0%3.

82%

4.14

%1.

68%

2.56

%1.

53%

Byp

asse

d2.

291%

1.32

6%2.

854%

1.89

8%1.

439%

0.45

6%

n

60

1567

1670

16

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.48

%0.

00%

0.28

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.94

7%0.

107%

0.06

3%0.

023%

0.03

4%0.

002%

n66

1667

1669

16

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le D

.3:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in U

rban

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

97.9

0%94

.21%

n91

26

M

edia

n99

.00%

98.0

0%

Acc

epte

d86

.44%

91.1

2%

n

8825

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d9.

06%

2.14

%

n

7619

Med

ian

2.00

%1.

00%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

70.9

9%78

.83%

n80

23

M

edia

n90

.00%

95.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge72

.11%

55.4

4%

n

8222

Med

ian

75.0

0%78

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le D

.4:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in S

ubur

ban

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.04

%0.

01%

0.12

%0.

01%

0.60

%0.

14%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.15

%0.

07%

0.10

%0.

01%

n96

3692

2992

2792

3592

2689

25

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

40%

0.15

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

15%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.01

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

9633

9129

8925

9335

9026

8925

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

5.00

%9.

30%

63.0

3%28

.57%

25.4

9%16

.17%

33.3

3%66

.67%

33.1

2%19

.78%

20.0

0%25

.00%

Byp

asse

d0.

04%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

16%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

75

1974

2173

1676

2672

1968

18

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.01

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

7019

6820

7118

7426

7020

6518

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yD

oub

le

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le D

.5:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in S

ubur

ban

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

5.91

5%2.

123%

4.03

4%0.

743%

1.02

5%0.

517%

n85

1985

1986

18

M

edia

n6.

17%

1.20

%2.

86%

0.11

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

748%

0.17

8%0.

913%

0.04

6%0.

037%

0.01

9%

n

8717

8719

8618

Med

ian

0.63

%0.

08%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

13.8

1%8.

68%

24.3

0%6.

84%

3.62

%3.

58%

Byp

asse

d2.

164%

0.13

3%0.

744%

0.01

3%0.

226%

0.00

0%

n

65

1066

1367

12

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.81

8%0.

076%

0.08

1%0.

012%

0.00

7%0.

000%

n67

1366

1465

14

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le D

.6:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in S

ubur

ban

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

86.7

9%96

.83%

n87

23

M

edia

n99

.00%

99.0

0%

Acc

epte

d76

.89%

85.0

7%

n

8522

Med

ian

90.0

0%95

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d21

.00%

5.73

%

n

7415

Med

ian

2.00

%0.

00%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

58.5

8%55

.57%

n67

14

M

edia

n60

.00%

45.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge52

.73%

66.8

0%

n

7717

Med

ian

60.0

0%80

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le D

.7:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in R

ural

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.07

7%0.

013%

0.29

0%0.

071%

1.17

6%0.

470%

0.00

5%0.

001%

0.17

5%0.

072%

0.11

9%0.

030%

n13

465

134

6113

766

135

7213

666

136

62

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

46%

0.36

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

01%

0.00

%0.

148%

0.04

7%0.

269%

0.14

9%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

030%

0.00

4%0.

027%

0.00

0%

n

131

6113

258

134

6513

471

134

6413

461

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

17.2

0%0.

00%

50.4

3%62

.22%

22.2

7%31

.59%

0.00

%0.

00%

16.9

0%5.

71%

22.0

7%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

142%

0.00

3%0.

048%

0.00

6%0.

277%

0.10

6%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

053%

0.00

0%0.

012%

0.00

0%

n

10

647

108

4610

641

110

5611

148

106

49

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

039%

0.00

3%0.

252%

0.06

2%0.

246%

0.05

3%0.

000%

0.00

0%0.

042%

0.00

3%0.

036%

0.01

6%

n

102

4610

243

105

4710

354

107

5010

549

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Je

opar

dy

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f

L

imit

atio

ns

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic

Im

mu

nit

yR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law


Tab

le D

.8:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in R

ural

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

6.77

0%7.

899%

3.12

1%2.

413%

1.06

5%0.

725%

n13

354

134

5113

353

Med

ian

5.00

%3.

33%

1.51

%1.

58%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

708%

0.62

5%0.

178%

0.15

2%0.

098%

0.06

0%

n

131

5213

251

131

51

M

edia

n0.

42%

0.30

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

% S

ucc

ess

Rat

e10

.45%

7.69

%5.

71%

6.19

%9.

22%

7.64

%

Byp

asse

d1.

323%

0.69

7%0.

469%

0.42

7%0.

123%

0.04

5%

n

99

3599

3510

341

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.47

3%0.

441%

0.08

8%0.

033%

0.03

3%0.

013%

n10

441

101

3910

143

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le D

.9:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in R

ural

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

95.2

7%97

.19%

n13

452

Med

ian

98.0

0%99

.00%

Acc

epte

d86

.81%

84.1

6%

n

131

50

M

edia

n90

.00%

90.0

0%

No

t P

rose

cute

d7.

13%

11.2

1%

n

111

42

M

edia

n5.

00%

5.00

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

62.6

1%64

.40%

n11

641

Med

ian

80.0

0%80

.00%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge66

.16%

71.4

5%

n

124

43

M

edia

n70

.00%

75.0

0%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le D

.10:

Res

ults

for

Cri

min

al D

efen

ses

in M

ixed

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.05

%0.

01%

0.11

%0.

03%

0.96

%0.

48%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.12

%0.

02%

0.11

%0.

03%

n51

1751

1551

1450

1651

1752

14

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

36%

0.14

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

03%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

15%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

5117

5114

4712

4916

5117

5214

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

60.0

0%20

.00%

29.1

7%30

.77%

14.6

6%2.

82%

------

0.00

%13

.33%

16.0

0%4.

76%

Byp

asse

d0.

03%

0.03

%0.

06%

0.05

%0.

16%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

38

1341

1344

1141

1641

1644

14

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

23%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

3814

4113

4111

4116

4116

4214

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tR

easo

nab

le

Mis

take

of

Law

Stat

ute

of

Lim

itat

ion

sIn

san

ity

Dip

lom

atic

Imm

un

ity

Dou

ble

Je

opar

dy


Tab

le D

.11:

Res

ults

for

Con

stit

utio

nal

Evi

dent

iary

Pro

visi

ons

in M

ixed

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

6.49

2%4.

439%

3.91

8%4.

648%

1.71

3%4.

520%

n49

1149

1249

11

M

edia

n3.

33%

2.78

%1.

29%

0.75

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

522%

0.07

0%0.

176%

0.01

7%0.

052%

0.00

8%

n

509

5011

4910

Med

ian

0.25

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

8.29

%1.

44%

4.64

%0.

36%

3.02

%0.

16%

Byp

asse

d1.

384%

0.03

7%0.

215%

0.03

5%0.

044%

0.00

4%

n

35

1040

1138

10

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.77

6%0.

036%

0.07

9%0.

016%

0.04

8%0.

000%

n41

1042

1138

10

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.17

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Se

izu

re

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

C

onfe

ssio

ns

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Tab

le D

.12:

Res

ults

for

Ple

a B

arga

ins

in M

ixed

Are

as

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

96.4

2%97

.96%

n51

13

M

edia

n99

.00%

98.0

0%

Acc

epte

d89

.92%

76.9

2%

n

5111

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

No

t P

rose

cute

d10

.40%

7.88

%

n

4610

Med

ian

2.00

%2.

00%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

60.3

2%76

.65%

n46

11

M

edia

n75

.00%

77.5

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge59

.48%

89.5

5%

n

4911

Med

ian

75.0

0%80

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins


APPENDIX E: SURVEY RESULTS BY RESPONDENT TYPE

The results in Appendix E represent the aggregation of responseswithin each category of respondent (i.e., prosectutor, judge, or de-fense attorney).


Tab

le E

.1:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.13

%0.

04%

0.04

%0.

01%

0.07

%0.

01%

0.15

%0.

05%

0.18

%0.

08%

0.32

%0.

02%

n12

863

135

5212

438

128

5812

639

124

38

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

05%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.02

%0.

09%

0.03

%0.

19%

0.01

%

n

126

6213

346

125

3912

758

125

3712

336

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

38.8

6%51

.70%

6.06

%10

.00%

61.5

4%12

.90%

51.0

2%48

.84%

46.8

8%33

.93%

58.6

2%42

.79%

Byp

asse

d0.

14%

0.05

%0.

16%

0.03

%0.

27%

0.03

%0.

09%

0.03

%0.

04%

0.07

%0.

01%

0.00

%

n

11

451

7227

116

2411

349

8026

114

27

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

02%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.03

%0.

12%

0.03

%0.

15%

0.00

%

n

111

5263

2511

329

116

4963

2010

930

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Stat

ute

of

Lim

itat

ion

s

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

En

trap

men

t

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.94

%0.

71%

0.90

%0.

69%

0.73

%0.

22%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

n12

857

129

4112

338

127

6612

749

124

41

M

edia

n0.

40%

0.24

%0.

67%

0.40

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

17%

0.08

%0.

27%

0.10

%0.

26%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%

n

124

5512

438

120

3712

765

126

4912

441

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.13

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

17.5

0%10

.53%

28.9

5%14

.72%

34.7

5%7.

02%

50.0

0%50

.00%

0.00

%50

.00%

50.0

0%#D

IV/

0!

Byp

asse

d0.

37%

0.21

%0.

29%

0.11

%0.

84%

0.21

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

11

242

7822

115

2111

558

8234

117

37

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

11%

0.01

%0.

16%

0.04

%0.

13%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

121

4667

2511

225

113

5773

3211

437

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dip

lom

atic

Im

mu

nit

y

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Insa

nit

y

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le E

.1 (

Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.08

%0.

02%

0.21

%0.

15%

0.36

%0.

08%

0.30

%0.

04%

0.04

%0.

05%

0.42

%0.

00%

n12

861

127

4312

431

126

5912

541

125

27

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

01%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.02

%0.

12%

0.03

%0.

02%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

20%

0.00

%

n

127

6112

342

123

3012

659

123

4012

427

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

7.46

%0.

00%

18.8

6%12

.60%

34.3

8%40

.20%

8.12

%17

.19%

13.3

3%11

.76%

48.6

8%11

.11%

Byp

asse

d0.

02%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.04

%0.

11%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.01

%

n

11

753

7728

115

2511

253

6923

118

26

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

10%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.01

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.03

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

14%

0.00

%

n

118

5267

3011

226

114

5460

2311

626

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le E

.2:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

5.59

%8.

66%

7.53

%6.

09%

15.8

3%1.

25%

3.50

%5.

36%

4.12

%3.

45%

6.73

%0.

36%

n12

151

118

3612

221

123

5011

832

123

22

M

edia

n4.

00%

5.00

%5.

07%

2.08

%10

.00%

1.22

%1.

67%

1.67

%2.

27%

1.33

%2.

00%

0.09

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

47%

0.35

%0.

67%

0.39

%3.

21%

0.09

%0.

20%

0.10

%0.

61%

0.14

%0.

42%

0.01

%

n

121

4912

032

120

1912

248

120

3012

221

Med

ian

0.29

%0.

31%

0.44

%0.

21%

1.00

%0.

09%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

8.57

%3.

91%

9.41

%6.

22%

19.9

4%6.

64%

5.77

%1.

73%

15.7

5%3.

87%

6.20

%3.

75%

Byp

asse

d1.

60%

1.32

%0.

74%

0.23

%3.

29%

0.66

%0.

62%

1.27

%1.

73%

3.53

%1.

71%

0.39

%

n

10

439

6317

101

1510

539

6418

110

18

M

edia

n0.

37%

0.15

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

66%

0.36

%0.

51%

0.13

%1.

31%

0.04

%0.

08%

0.07

%0.

03%

0.03

%0.

13%

0.00

%

n

118

4456

1811

019

115

4157

2010

918

Med

ian

0.07

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

1.18

%2.

89%

1.08

%0.

99%

2.12

%0.

18%

n12

351

120

3112

221

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

04%

0.03

%0.

09%

0.04

%0.

16%

0.01

%

n

122

5112

130

121

18

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

% S

ucc

ess

Rat

e3.

29%

0.90

%8.

15%

3.61

%7.

34%

4.72

%

Byp

asse

d0.

25%

0.93

%0.

97%

0.42

%0.

40%

0.03

%

n

10

843

6620

112

17

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.01

%0.

00%

0.06

%0.

01%

0.07

%0.

00%

n11

245

5621

111

18

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion


Tab

le E

.3:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

96.8

1%93

.45%

90.0

6%95

.51%

97.6

2%96

.30%

n12

949

122

3612

530

Med

ian

99.0

0%99

.00%

97.0

0%95

.00%

100.

00%

99.0

0%

Acc

epte

d84

.26%

85.3

3%86

.86%

86.7

9%83

.97%

88.6

3%

n

126

4712

036

123

26

M

edia

n90

.00%

91.0

0%90

.00%

90.0

0%90

.00%

90.0

0%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

10.5

6%5.

01%

10.9

5%7.

40%

12.1

0%5.

71%

n11

740

8627

115

19

M

edia

n2.

00%

1.00

%2.

25%

2.00

%5.

00%

5.00

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

61.9

3%65

.00%

62.0

6%61

.40%

79.7

3%80

.98%

n10

838

9731

117

21

M

edia

n80

.00%

80.0

0%70

.00%

72.5

0%88

.00%

85.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge58

.41%

66.3

1%69

.78%

70.5

5%69

.41%

64.7

9%

n

117

4011

134

117

20

M

edia

n60

.00%

75.0

0%70

.00%

75.0

0%80

.00%

80.0

0%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


APPENDIX F: SURVEY RESULTS BY STATE AND RESPONDENT TYPE

The results in Appendix F represent the aggregation of responsesfrom each individual state within each category of respondent (i.e.,prosecutor, judge, or defense attorney).


Tab

le F

.1:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Ark

ansa

s

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.28

%0.

02%

0.08

%0.

02%

0.12

%0.

02%

0.57

%0.

71%

0.72

%0.

33%

0.64

%0.

11%

n20

913

218

620

713

217

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

38%

0.00

%0.

67%

0.33

%0.

50%

0.11

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.01

%0.

30%

0.32

%0.

32%

0.20

%0.

44%

0.00

%

n

2010

133

186

207

132

175

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.33

%0.

20%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

40.0

0%33

.33%

52.6

3%45

.00%

44.7

4%60

.00%

69.2

3%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

13%

0.00

%0.

92%

0.17

%0.

23%

0.00

%0.

15%

0.12

%0.

20%

1.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

18

910

215

317

611

214

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.33

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

1.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

05%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

37%

0.21

%0.

49%

0.07

%0.

12%

0.00

%

n

179

112

163

186

102

133

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.21

%0.

00%

0.20

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

2.99

%0.

72%

1.13

%8.

37%

1.44

%0.

70%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

n20

913

217

720

1113

218

10

M

edia

n1.

71%

0.46

%0.

86%

8.33

%0.

00%

0.13

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

09%

0.18

%0.

17%

0.03

%0.

30%

0.08

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

208

132

157

2011

132

1810

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

3.16

%18

.18%

15.0

0%0.

40%

19.3

5%10

.88%

------

------

------

Byp

asse

d0.

08%

0.00

%0.

32%

0.07

%0.

31%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

19

811

214

218

1112

217

8

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

11%

0.07

%0.

32%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

209

112

131

1811

112

178

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.1 (

Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Ark

ansa

s

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.09

%0.

01%

0.19

%0.

07%

0.22

%0.

06%

0.05

%0.

01%

0.07

%0.

10%

0.17

%0.

00%

n20

1013

218

720

1111

218

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

09%

0.03

%0.

02%

0.01

%0.

02%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

17%

0.00

%

n

2010

132

187

2011

112

185

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

50.0

0%50

.00%

11.1

1%8.

33%

33.3

3%10

0.00

%0.

00%

33.3

3%10

0.00

%---

Byp

asse

d0.

02%

0.00

%0.

14%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

18

1011

216

419

119

217

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

31%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.09

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

1810

92

164

1911

92

175

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.2:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in A

rkan

sas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

8.27

%5.

64%

5.66

%16

.67%

14.7

5%4.

71%

4.33

%1.

32%

2.87

%11

.67%

0.80

%1.

11%

n19

813

217

319

813

217

3

M

edia

n6.

67%

4.17

%6.

64%

16.6

7%5.

00%

0.80

%1.

67%

0.25

%2.

21%

11.6

7%0.

93%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

61%

0.42

%0.

98%

0.67

%5.

37%

0.13

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

11%

0.03

%0.

10%

0.00

%

n

196

132

171

197

132

172

Med

ian

0.40

%0.

00%

0.80

%0.

67%

0.50

%0.

13%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

7.37

%3.

27%

17.3

3%4.

00%

36.4

4%1.

06%

0.77

%0.

00%

3.95

%0.

29%

12.1

2%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d1.

14%

1.15

%0.

50%

0.27

%3.

24%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.07

%0.

09%

0.00

%0.

40%

0.00

%

n

18

610

114

118

710

216

1

M

edia

n0.

65%

0.25

%0.

10%

0.27

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d1.

13%

0.68

%0.

82%

0.33

%0.

37%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%

n

206

91

151

207

92

151

Med

ian

0.28

%0.

28%

0.42

%0.

33%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

1.98

%0.

01%

0.12

%0.

33%

0.14

%0.

03%

n20

812

218

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.33

%0.

00%

0.02

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

03%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

10%

0.00

%

n

208

122

181

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

1.30

%10

0.00

%0.

00%

10.0

0%66

.67%

0.00

%

Byp

asse

d0.

07%

0.05

%0.

30%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

18

810

216

1

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.01

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

n18

89

216

1

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.3:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Ark

ansa

s

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

98.1

9%99

.43%

95.7

4%77

.00%

99.3

8%97

.95%

n20

813

119

5

M

edia

n10

0.00

%10

0.00

%98

.00%

78.5

0%10

0.00

%99

.00%

Acc

epte

d91

.26%

94.5

1%88

.53%

97.0

0%78

.88%

35.3

3%

n

198

131

182

Med

ian

95.0

0%95

.50%

90.0

0%88

.00%

80.0

0%85

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

4.73

%2.

03%

4.10

%0.

00%

17.2

1%3.

84%

n17

711

116

2

M

edia

n2.

00%

1.00

%4.

00%

0.00

%4.

50%

3.50

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

62.1

8%89

.42%

75.0

9%97

.00%

73.5

1%98

.61%

n16

611

117

2

M

edia

n82

.50%

82.5

0%70

.00%

83.5

0%80

.00%

98.5

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge49

.90%

81.9

3%74

.41%

87.0

0%56

.50%

95.5

2%

n

186

121

172

Med

ian

50.0

0%77

.50%

60.0

0%73

.50%

50.0

0%94

.50%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.4:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Col

orad

o

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.02

%0.

02%

0.05

%0.

03%

0.09

%0.

01%

0.15

%0.

02%

0.12

%0.

00%

0.21

%0.

05%

n20

1129

1230

820

1126

830

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

09%

0.02

%

n

2011

289

308

2011

258

306

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%7.

14%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

20.0

0%33

.33%

42.8

6%---

44.4

4%51

.92%

Byp

asse

d0.

06%

0.01

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

58%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%

n

18

814

328

216

914

427

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.03

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%

n

189

104

265

168

103

265

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.19

%0.

05%

0.50

%0.

44%

0.31

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

n20

1227

630

520

1227

929

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.03

%0.

29%

0.40

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

13%

0.02

%0.

18%

0.11

%0.

07%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

1812

236

305

2012

279

296

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

20%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

57.8

9%33

.33%

30.8

3%24

.00%

23.0

8%10

.09%

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%---

Byp

asse

d0.

16%

0.04

%0.

10%

0.00

%1.

70%

0.20

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

14

815

427

118

1017

726

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.20

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

1710

114

284

1810

146

265

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.4 (

Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Col

orad

o

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.10

%0.

02%

0.26

%0.

00%

0.33

%0.

19%

0.18

%0.

04%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.52

%0.

00%

n20

1226

729

320

1226

630

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.08

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

19%

0.09

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

12%

0.00

%

n

2012

247

283

2012

256

303

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

9.84

%---

58.3

3%50

.25%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%---

22.7

3%50

.00%

Byp

asse

d0.

01%

0.00

%0.

16%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.09

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

17

1016

525

218

914

227

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

09%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.00

%

n

179

126

262

1810

112

283

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.5:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in C

olor

ado

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

8.96

%8.

24%

8.16

%20

.30%

20.5

8%5.

00%

6.59

%6.

82%

6.85

%20

.60%

17.7

3%5.

00%

n18

1125

630

219

1125

630

2

M

edia

n7.

33%

8.62

%6.

33%

6.00

%15

.50%

7.14

%2.

86%

3.25

%6.

33%

20.0

0%8.

17%

7.14

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

59%

0.36

%0.

56%

0.30

%1.

34%

0.15

%0.

23%

0.08

%0.

38%

0.13

%0.

62%

0.09

%

n

1811

254

302

1910

254

301

Med

ian

0.45

%0.

20%

0.46

%0.

16%

0.95

%0.

34%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

25%

0.00

%0.

09%

Su

cces

s R

ate

6.64

%4.

36%

6.84

%1.

22%

6.50

%3.

00%

3.43

%1.

21%

5.50

%0.

52%

3.51

%1.

50%

Byp

asse

d1.

41%

2.55

%0.

75%

0.00

%5.

17%

10.0

0%1.

25%

2.44

%6.

04%

73.8

9%2.

37%

8.81

%

n

14

714

221

115

715

223

2

M

edia

n0.

33%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

10.0

0%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

73.8

9%0.

00%

5.23

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

63%

0.24

%0.

32%

0.10

%0.

83%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

12%

0.01

%

n

169

62

253

178

72

253

Med

ian

0.09

%0.

28%

0.33

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

3.90

%6.

39%

1.79

%4.

39%

5.03

%0.

42%

n19

1125

528

3

M

edia

n0.

10%

3.76

%0.

00%

0.50

%0.

00%

4.29

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

19%

0.04

%0.

12%

0.00

%0.

25%

0.01

%

n

1811

255

282

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

05%

Su

cces

s R

ate

4.74

%0.

61%

6.77

%0.

00%

4.91

%3.

56%

Byp

asse

d1.

11%

2.29

%3.

69%

9.85

%1.

52%

0.02

%

n

17

914

224

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

9.85

%0.

00%

0.63

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

n17

98

225

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.6:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Col

orad

o

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

96.5

4%97

.24%

99.0

2%98

.01%

98.1

2%90

.95%

n20

1026

630

5

M

edia

n99

.00%

98.0

0%96

.50%

95.0

0%99

.45%

95.0

0%

Acc

epte

d86

.39%

90.9

2%92

.01%

92.6

4%90

.99%

90.4

6%

n

2010

266

305

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

90.0

0%90

.00%

93.5

0%90

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

1.58

%3.

84%

9.00

%0.

78%

6.61

%0.

56%

n20

920

428

2

M

edia

n1.

00%

0.51

%1.

50%

1.00

%2.

00%

2.50

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

64.9

1%58

.18%

79.2

1%86

.11%

86.7

1%96

.34%

n19

1021

529

3

M

edia

n75

.00%

75.0

0%87

.50%

87.5

0%95

.00%

95.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge81

.29%

60.7

8%69

.27%

66.4

1%87

.90%

96.3

4%

n

2010

256

283

Med

ian

80.0

0%76

.00%

85.0

0%90

.00%

95.0

0%95

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.7:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Mar

ylan

d

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.06

%0.

01%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.42

%0.

01%

0.21

%0.

06%

0.42

%0.

02%

n36

1112

414

426

836

712

313

426

9

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

22%

0.01

%0.

15%

0.06

%0.

21%

0.01

%

n

3511

123

144

268

367

123

134

269

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

47.0

6%---

50.0

0%0.

00%

---0.

00%

74.3

6%0.

00%

50.9

1%10

0.00

%75

.00%

100.

00%

50.0

0%84

.62%

Byp

asse

d0.

02%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

32

610

38

323

533

59

37

223

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.00

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.09

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.42

%0.

00%

n31

66

38

322

635

66

27

222

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rt

En

trap

men

t

Def

ense

Att

orn

ey

Stat

ute

of

Lim

itat

ion

s

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rtD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.53

%0.

25%

0.33

%0.

74%

1.05

%1.

33%

0.77

%0.

19%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

02%

0.03

%0.

00%

n36

612

413

325

936

1012

413

426

8

M

edia

n0.

93%

0.36

%0.

27%

0.25

%2.

00%

2.22

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

11%

0.04

%0.

08%

0.22

%0.

39%

0.20

%0.

26%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

366

122

133

258

3610

124

134

268

Med

ian

0.06

%0.

03%

0.06

%1.

01%

0.20

%0.

20%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

21.4

1%15

.53%

26.0

4%14

.97%

36.5

9%15

.09%

33.3

3%10

.16%

---50

.00%

------

0.00

%0.

00%

100.

00%

---

Byp

asse

d0.

12%

0.01

%0.

15%

0.10

%0.

52%

---0.

29%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

32

49

26

024

732

88

39

323

7

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.06

%0.

33%

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.01

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

n34

56

27

122

732

86

39

321

7

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rtD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rtD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.7 (

Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Mar

ylan

d

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.08

%0.

01%

0.03

%0.

25%

0.37

%0.

15%

0.38

%0.

09%

0.12

%0.

00%

0.11

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.26

%0.

00%

n37

812

412

326

736

712

313

426

7

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

01%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

14%

0.00

%0.

24%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

14%

0.00

%

n

378

123

123

267

367

123

134

267

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

12.0

0%0.

00%

44.4

4%0.

00%

38.1

0%0.

00%

63.6

4%26

.83%

3.03

%---

21.4

3%---

25.0

0%---

53.3

3%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

22%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

33

67

36

124

631

69

37

323

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.03

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.23

%0.

00%

n34

67

37

222

632

67

37

322

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Dou

ble

Jeop

ard

yR

easo

nab

le M

ista

ke o

f L

aw

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rtD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rtD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.8:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in M

aryl

and

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

3.58

%5.

44%

2.95

%6.

10%

30.0

7%8.

70%

27.3

6%2.

16%

3.26

%0.

87%

0.76

%0.

20%

9.27

%2.

05%

3.07

%0.

17%

n33

511

310

325

635

512

310

226

7

M

edia

n2.

25%

6.00

%4.

00%

10.0

0%16

.67%

22.2

2%12

.00%

1.13

%1.

67%

0.11

%0.

11%

0.00

%5.

00%

2.11

%0.

48%

0.02

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

50%

0.47

%0.

31%

1.07

%1.

48%

0.49

%7.

57%

0.30

%0.

39%

0.05

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

55%

0.10

%0.

70%

0.02

%

n

335

113

103

236

345

123

102

257

Med

ian

0.20

%0.

40%

0.33

%1.

20%

1.50

%2.

00%

2.80

%0.

23%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.35

%0.

22%

0.00

%0.

01%

Su

cces

s R

ate

14.3

9%8.

68%

10.6

8%17

.52%

4.91

%5.

66%

24.6

0%13

.82%

12.0

6%5.

63%

9.64

%0.

00%

5.96

%5.

00%

22.7

3%10

.39%

Byp

asse

d2.

60%

1.00

%1.

77%

1.03

%2.

55%

---4.

84%

0.10

%0.

70%

0.59

%0.

18%

0.50

%2.

36%

---1.

84%

0.00

%

n

28

36

35

019

529

47

35

023

6

M

edia

n0.

80%

2.00

%0.

09%

1.00

%3.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%2.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.52

%0.

20%

0.06

%1.

51%

0.34

%0.

00%

5.56

%0.

22%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.30

%0.

00%

n34

46

35

121

632

47

35

122

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

80%

0.06

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Con

fess

ion

s

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rtD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Cou

rtD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.93

%0.

62%

0.15

%0.

00%

4.70

%8.

21%

1.81

%0.

17%

n35

512

310

226

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%1.

08%

6.11

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

01%

0.03

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.50

%0.

07%

0.03

%

n

345

123

101

266

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

50%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

1.14

%5.

58%

10.2

6%---

3.58

%4.

69%

3.85

%16

.67%

Byp

asse

d0.

14%

0.00

%0.

16%

0.00

%0.

91%

0.67

%0.

06%

0.00

%

n

29

37

35

124

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%1.

00%

0.67

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.23

%0.

02%

n31

46

35

122

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

ge-D

istr

ict

Cou

rtJu

dge

-Cir

cuit

Co

urt

Def

ense

Att

orn

ey


Tab

le F

.9:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Mar

ylan

d

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

96.1

8%99

.20%

90.5

4%95

.44%

89.0

2%95

.95%

93.7

5%97

.62%

n34

510

313

426

6

M

edia

n99

.00%

99.0

0%95

.50%

98.0

0%95

.00%

96.5

0%97

.00%

97.0

0%

Acc

epte

d72

.79%

75.2

5%81

.96%

68.2

7%79

.13%

72.3

2%69

.54%

83.0

0%

n

293

93

134

245

Med

ian

82.5

0%85

.00%

90.0

0%75

.00%

85.0

0%80

.00%

80.0

0%85

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

27.9

5%22

.72%

7.83

%34

.43%

9.07

%2.

24%

15.0

8%10

.45%

n31

47

38

222

5

M

edia

n3.

00%

20.0

0%5.

00%

20.0

0%2.

00%

5.00

%10

.00%

10.0

0%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

50.4

2%87

.71%

54.2

1%60

.40%

43.1

2%54

.60%

76.3

4%78

.14%

n36

48

39

226

6

M

edia

n58

.00%

82.5

0%55

.00%

66.0

0%70

.00%

76.5

0%75

.00%

70.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge45

.52%

95.8

5%61

.96%

69.6

3%56

.30%

54.3

5%63

.86%

45.2

7%

n

353

83

112

256

Med

ian

50.0

0%90

.00%

60.0

0%70

.00%

50.0

0%75

.00%

80.0

0%51

.50%

Def

ense

Att

orn

eyP

rose

cuto

rJu

dge

-Dis

tric

t C

ourt

Jud

ge-C

ircu

it C

ou

rt

Ple

a B

arga

ins


Tab

le F

.10:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Ore

gon

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.44

%0.

14%

0.05

%0.

01%

0.23

%0.

01%

0.12

%0.

09%

0.27

%0.

11%

0.18

%0.

03%

n18

1012

410

218

1012

311

4

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

40%

0.11

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

07%

0.06

%0.

13%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

1810

123

102

1810

123

113

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

90.1

1%83

.72%

0.00

%50

.00%

0.00

%10

0.00

%56

.00%

67.8

6%47

.76%

22.5

0%0.

00%

0.00

%

Byp

asse

d0.

70%

0.23

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

12%

0.01

%0.

47%

0.16

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

09%

0.01

%

n

18

1010

310

217

99

311

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

09%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

19%

0.05

%0.

12%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.01

%

n

1810

63

102

179

62

114

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

1.27

%2.

62%

0.54

%0.

26%

0.45

%1.

92%

0.03

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

n18

912

411

517

912

411

3

M

edia

n0.

42%

0.10

%0.

56%

0.30

%0.

00%

0.13

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

33%

0.19

%0.

25%

0.06

%0.

27%

0.02

%0.

02%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

178

122

115

189

124

113

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.08

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

25.9

5%5.

29%

46.3

8%24

.24%

60.0

0%0.

90%

66.6

7%50

.00%

---10

0.00

%---

---

Byp

asse

d1.

19%

1.22

%0.

42%

0.07

%0.

18%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

17

79

211

318

98

311

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

48%

0.06

%0.

26%

0.02

%0.

27%

0.03

%0.

07%

0.06

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

186

62

114

189

63

113

Med

ian

0.06

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.10

(Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Ore

gon

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.07

%0.

02%

0.21

%0.

12%

0.36

%0.

02%

0.29

%0.

11%

0.09

%0.

05%

1.49

%0.

04%

n17

1012

411

418

912

311

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.05

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

01%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.02

%0.

09%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.02

%0.

01%

0.01

%1.

00%

0.00

%

n

1610

123

113

189

123

102

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

14.2

9%0.

00%

22.2

2%16

.82%

25.0

0%0.

00%

66.6

7%0.

00%

10.0

0%21

.43%

20.0

0%21

.43%

Byp

asse

d0.

01%

0.01

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

17

97

311

316

99

311

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

05%

0.02

%0.

08%

0.01

%0.

18%

0.01

%0.

28%

0.12

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

23%

0.00

%

n

189

73

114

189

73

112

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.11:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in O

rego

n

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

3.67

%19

.30%

6.10

%2.

45%

7.19

%1.

58%

1.92

%8.

48%

1.97

%1.

19%

4.30

%0.

31%

n18

811

311

318

812

311

3

M

edia

n2.

29%

3.89

%7.

35%

2.08

%7.

33%

1.22

%0.

91%

1.89

%2.

15%

1.33

%1.

33%

0.15

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

32%

0.37

%0.

93%

0.31

%1.

86%

0.38

%0.

10%

0.12

%0.

18%

0.07

%0.

68%

0.03

%

n

188

113

112

188

123

113

Med

ian

0.22

%0.

36%

0.50

%0.

14%

2.50

%0.

28%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

8.72

%1.

92%

15.3

1%12

.01%

25.7

9%9.

62%

5.05

%1.

38%

9.17

%5.

49%

15.7

9%8.

93%

Byp

asse

d0.

57%

0.48

%2.

26%

0.29

%0.

68%

0.00

%0.

88%

1.42

%0.

06%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

15

76

311

115

67

311

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.48

%0.

00%

0.33

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.06

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d1.

25%

1.22

%0.

98%

0.12

%1.

04%

0.00

%0.

41%

0.13

%0.

08%

0.03

%0.

09%

0.00

%

n

177

63

111

166

73

112

Med

ian

0.33

%0.

56%

0.17

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.14

%0.

13%

0.76

%0.

14%

0.45

%0.

17%

n18

812

311

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.10

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

03%

0.02

%0.

09%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

188

123

112

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

21.4

3%11

.54%

11.4

0%8.

06%

0.00

%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

07%

0.14

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

18%

0.00

%

n

17

77

311

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.02

%0.

00%

0.11

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

n17

76

311

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.12:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Ore

gon

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

96.7

6%94

.23%

84.0

6%94

.94%

96.4

5%99

.59%

n18

919

911

3

M

edia

n99

.45%

95.0

0%95

.00%

97.0

0%10

0.00

%10

0.00

%

Acc

epte

d90

.26%

67.7

6%79

.13%

86.1

1%85

.15%

85.2

5%

n

188

199

113

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

85.0

0%85

.00%

85.0

0%85

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

6.73

%3.

10%

16.2

1%13

.80%

10.5

0%5.

68%

n15

614

510

3

M

edia

n5.

00%

3.50

%5.

00%

3.50

%7.

50%

5.00

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

58.7

6%65

.44%

68.5

4%61

.69%

68.3

5%80

.55%

n17

816

810

3

M

edia

n80

.00%

50.0

0%70

.00%

60.0

0%82

.50%

80.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge59

.81%

72.5

2%59

.00%

74.5

8%53

.21%

72.2

8%

n

178

179

103

Med

ian

70.0

0%72

.50%

52.5

0%62

.50%

65.0

0%75

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.13:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Rho

de I

slan

d

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

------

0.58

%---

0.11

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%---

0.32

%0.

00%

n0

02

010

20

02

010

2

M

edia

n---

---0.

98%

---0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l---

---0.

00%

---0.

11%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

32%

0.00

%

n

00

20

102

00

20

102

Med

ian

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

------

0.00

%---

100.

00%

------

------

---10

0.00

%---

Byp

asse

d---

---1.

96%

---0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

n

0

01

010

20

01

010

2

M

edia

n---

---1.

96%

---0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d---

------

---0.

53%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

21%

0.00

%

n

00

00

102

00

10

102

Med

ian

------

------

0.00

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

------

1.17

%0.

20%

0.42

%0.

03%

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

n0

02

110

20

02

110

2

M

edia

n---

---0.

83%

0.20

%0.

00%

0.01

%---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l---

---0.

58%

0.00

%0.

11%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

00

21

102

00

21

102

Med

ian

------

0.42

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

------

50.0

0%0.

00%

25.0

0%0.

00%

------

------

------

Byp

asse

d---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

n

0

02

110

20

01

010

2

M

edia

n---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

n

00

21

102

00

10

102

Med

ian

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.13

(Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Rho

de I

slan

d

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

------

0.00

%0.

00%

1.69

%0.

03%

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.63

%0.

00%

n0

02

110

20

02

110

2

M

edia

n---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

60%

0.01

%---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

32%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

00

21

102

00

21

102

Med

ian

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

------

------

18.7

5%0.

00%

------

------

0.00

%---

Byp

asse

d---

---0.

00%

---0.

21%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

n

0

01

09

20

01

010

2

M

edia

n---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d---

---0.

00%

---0.

21%

0.03

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

n

00

10

102

00

10

92

Med

ian

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%0.

01%

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.14:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in R

hode

Isl

and

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

------

1.17

%0.

00%

6.56

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.95

%0.

00%

n0

02

110

10

02

110

1

M

edia

n---

---1.

96%

0.00

%2.

04%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l---

---0.

58%

0.00

%2.

54%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

0.00

%0.

21%

0.00

%

n

00

21

101

00

21

101

Med

ian

------

0.98

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

------

50.0

0%---

38.7

1%---

------

------

22.2

2%---

Byp

asse

d---

---0.

00%

---1.

59%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

42%

0.00

%

n

0

01

010

10

01

010

1

M

edia

n---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d---

---5.

88%

---0.

63%

0.00

%---

---0.

00%

---0.

00%

0.00

%

n

00

10

101

00

10

101

Med

ian

------

5.88

%---

0.00

%0.

00%

------

0.00

%---

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.14

%0.

13%

0.76

%0.

14%

0.45

%0.

17%

n18

812

311

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.10

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

03%

0.02

%0.

09%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

188

123

112

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

21.4

3%11

.54%

11.4

0%8.

06%

0.00

%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

07%

0.14

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

18%

0.00

%

n

17

77

311

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.02

%0.

00%

0.11

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

n17

76

311

2

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.15:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Rho

de I

slan

d

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

------

96.3

2%99

.00%

98.7

8%95

.07%

n0

02

19

2

M

edia

n---

---94

.50%

99.0

0%10

0.00

%97

.50%

Acc

epte

d---

---94

.38%

98.0

0%84

.84%

83.6

8%

n

00

21

91

Med

ian

------

91.5

0%98

.00%

90.0

0%85

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

------

23.5

8%3.

00%

24.3

8%0.

00%

n0

02

18

1

M

edia

n---

---44

.00%

3.00

%3.

00%

0.00

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

------

30.0

6%15

.00%

96.2

2%90

.00%

n0

02

17

1

M

edia

n---

---45

.00%

15.0

0%95

.00%

90.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge---

---78

.75%

80.0

0%79

.52%

90.0

0%

n

00

21

71

Med

ian

------

77.5

0%80

.00%

75.0

0%90

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.16:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Wis

cons

in

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.03

%0.

02%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

01%

0.04

%0.

01%

0.08

%0.

01%

0.12

%0.

00%

n34

2256

2330

1234

2351

1730

11

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%

n

3320

5520

3012

3323

5016

2911

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%7.

41%

7.14

%0.

00%

0.00

%7.

69%

33.3

3%25

.00%

39.3

4%33

.33%

50.0

0%55

.56%

Byp

asse

d0.

03%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

20%

0.06

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.01

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

28

1827

1230

1030

2031

1229

10

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

23%

0.02

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.00

%

n

2718

219

2911

3020

228

2710

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.60

%0.

65%

0.93

%0.

41%

0.90

%0.

11%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

n34

2152

1730

1034

2450

2230

12

M

edia

n0.

41%

0.36

%0.

71%

0.52

%0.

42%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

23%

0.12

%0.

25%

0.12

%0.

46%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

3321

5116

2910

3323

4922

3012

Med

ian

0.17

%0.

08%

0.19

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

36.6

4%17

.75%

26.6

8%29

.87%

47.7

3%18

.46%

0.00

%---

0.00

%---

------

Byp

asse

d0.

53%

0.05

%0.

19%

0.29

%0.

90%

0.31

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

30

1531

829

629

2030

1630

12

M

edia

n0.

14%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

13%

0.00

%0.

12%

0.11

%0.

26%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

3216

249

287

2719

2715

2912

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.16

(Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Wis

cons

in

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.07

%0.

03%

0.15

%0.

18%

0.24

%0.

03%

0.06

%0.

02%

0.03

%0.

06%

0.35

%0.

00%

n34

2152

1930

832

2052

1830

8

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.02

%0.

06%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

20%

0.00

%

n

3421

5219

308

3220

5117

308

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

6.67

%0.

00%

10.0

0%9.

16%

25.0

0%21

.05%

8.33

%36

.36%

16.6

7%0.

00%

58.8

2%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

05%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.02

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

14%

0.01

%

n

32

1831

1430

828

1828

1030

8

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

31%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.01

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

02%

0.03

%0.

25%

0.00

%

n

3118

2614

278

2718

2210

298

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.17:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in W

isco

nsin

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

6.53

%6.

43%

4.53

%2.

21%

9.79

%0.

60%

2.78

%4.

68%

2.97

%1.

71%

6.00

%0.

15%

n33

1948

1429

632

1849

1329

6

M

edia

n5.

00%

3.64

%3.

36%

2.00

%7.

50%

1.14

%1.

46%

1.92

%1.

31%

0.20

%2.

50%

0.13

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

40%

0.28

%0.

42%

0.34

%1.

24%

0.03

%0.

08%

0.14

%0.

83%

0.31

%0.

33%

0.01

%

n

3319

5014

297

3218

5013

297

Med

ian

0.20

%0.

18%

0.30

%0.

15%

0.67

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

01%

Su

cces

s R

ate

6.17

%4.

32%

10.2

6%12

.83%

12.6

6%4.

94%

2.83

%2.

88%

29.0

6%17

.85%

5.46

%6.

38%

Byp

asse

d1.

12%

0.53

%0.

18%

0.00

%2.

65%

0.39

%0.

37%

0.43

%0.

10%

0.00

%3.

01%

0.10

%

n

29

1623

926

628

1524

927

6

M

edia

n0.

18%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.19

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.23

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

34%

0.17

%0.

28%

0.06

%0.

59%

0.03

%0.

07%

0.14

%0.

03%

0.03

%0.

15%

0.00

%

n

3118

238

287

3016

249

265

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.33

%0.

27%

0.58

%0.

61%

2.34

%0.

03%

n31

1950

1229

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

02%

0.01

%0.

06%

0.03

%0.

25%

0.00

%

n

3219

5012

296

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

6.52

%3.

16%

10.8

1%4.

85%

10.5

3%2.

22%

Byp

asse

d0.

14%

0.03

%0.

12%

0.00

%0.

24%

0.05

%

n

27

1626

927

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.02

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

n29

1722

927

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le F

.18:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Wis

cons

in

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

97.0

8%96

.95%

93.4

3%97

.13%

97.9

8%99

.22%

n35

1950

1530

9

M

edia

n98

.00%

98.0

0%99

.00%

95.0

0%99

.00%

99.0

0%

Acc

epte

d91

.98%

90.8

2%86

.69%

91.0

0%89

.91%

95.0

0%

n

3419

4815

309

Med

ian

93.5

0%93

.00%

91.2

5%90

.00%

92.5

0%96

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

2.07

%1.

24%

10.4

1%3.

62%

9.95

%5.

36%

n32

1631

1430

7

M

edia

n1.

00%

0.25

%2.

00%

5.00

%5.

00%

2.50

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

74.2

9%76

.15%

51.6

7%51

.76%

80.4

0%77

.01%

n27

1338

1429

7

M

edia

n90

.00%

85.0

0%60

.00%

60.0

0%90

.00%

80.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge64

.74%

63.9

1%73

.47%

64.8

9%67

.24%

59.0

7%

n

3014

4415

307

Med

ian

60.0

0%62

.50%

75.0

0%70

.00%

77.5

0%50

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


APPENDIX G: SURVEY RESULTS BY AREA AND RESPONDENT TYPE

The results in Appendix G represent the aggregation of responsesfrom each individual area type (i.e., Urban, Suburban, Rural, orMixed) within each category of repondent (i.e., prosecutor, judge, ordefense attorney). The area-type divisions in these categories arebased on the self-reporting of respondents. The tables titled “Urban,”“Suburban,” and “Rural” contain all respondents who selected one ofthose categories as describing the area from which most of their casesoriginate. The tables titled “Mix” contain all respondents who se-lected more than one of these categories.


Tab

le G

.1:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Urb

an A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.47

%0.

11%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

01%

0.08

%0.

05%

0.09

%0.

44%

0.25

%0.

02%

n23

724

445

1823

821

245

16

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.29

%0.

00%

0.01

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

25%

0.08

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

04%

0.06

%0.

19%

0.01

%

n

238

244

4518

238

212

4516

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

53.7

3%72

.55%

0.00

%---

16.6

7%8.

70%

45.4

5%24

.00%

43.7

5%14

.29%

76.1

9%53

.73%

Byp

asse

d0.

65%

0.24

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

33%

0.04

%0.

33%

0.13

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%

n

21

610

344

1122

710

244

11

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

12%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%

n

197

83

4315

206

82

4213

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

1.19

%1.

35%

0.39

%0.

14%

1.03

%0.

35%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

n23

821

444

1323

921

645

15

M

edia

n0.

43%

0.20

%0.

38%

0.06

%0.

09%

0.26

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

28%

0.04

%0.

17%

0.02

%0.

46%

0.02

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

228

214

4312

239

216

4515

Med

ian

0.06

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

22.2

2%3.

31%

44.2

0%14

.29%

42.4

2%5.

45%

100.

00%

50.0

0%---

---0.

00%

---

Byp

asse

d1.

26%

0.60

%0.

21%

0.03

%1.

52%

0.29

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

21

710

343

721

812

544

15

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

13%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

05%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

218

103

439

208

105

4315

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.1 (

Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Urb

an A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.07

%0.

02%

0.16

%0.

13%

0.21

%0.

10%

0.16

%0.

06%

0.04

%0.

07%

0.38

%0.

00%

n22

921

545

1021

920

345

10

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.02

%0.

06%

0.04

%0.

05%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.02

%0.

15%

0.00

%

n

229

195

4510

219

203

4410

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

17.8

6%15

.38%

27.7

8%42

.94%

30.0

0%24

.14%

33.3

3%30

.00%

40.6

3%20

.00%

Byp

asse

d0.

08%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.05

%0.

19%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.01

%

n

21

710

544

1017

710

344

10

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

50%

0.02

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

24%

0.09

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

16%

0.00

%

n

206

105

4210

188

83

4410

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.2:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in U

rban

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

10.2

4%13

.07%

3.99

%2.

76%

20.7

3%1.

24%

4.56

%6.

59%

2.98

%8.

47%

8.83

%0.

46%

n21

1018

343

822

1018

243

7

M

edia

n10

.00%

13.3

3%7.

98%

1.67

%13

.33%

2.32

%2.

08%

2.17

%7.

74%

15.4

4%4.

00%

1.43

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

41%

0.36

%0.

36%

0.30

%4.

94%

0.06

%0.

07%

0.09

%0.

21%

0.31

%0.

40%

0.01

%

n

219

184

426

229

182

435

Med

ian

0.20

%0.

63%

0.28

%0.

42%

1.23

%0.

17%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

29%

0.00

%0.

02%

Su

cces

s R

ate

4.00

%2.

63%

9.13

%10

.76%

22.9

8%4.

72%

1.51

%1.

26%

7.03

%3.

68%

4.59

%2.

07%

Byp

asse

d2.

18%

2.94

%0.

07%

0.00

%6.

12%

0.93

%1.

46%

3.20

%8.

10%

18.6

8%2.

69%

0.59

%

n

18

810

232

520

89

238

6

M

edia

n1.

43%

1.24

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

1.79

%0.

10%

0.05

%0.

00%

36.9

5%0.

00%

0.48

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d1.

20%

0.53

%0.

37%

0.02

%1.

21%

0.04

%0.

10%

0.15

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

187

92

397

207

92

387

Med

ian

0.40

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.88

%2.

03%

0.92

%1.

55%

2.63

%0.

22%

n22

819

343

7

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.42

%0.

00%

0.29

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

02%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

11%

0.01

%

n

238

193

436

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

Su

cces

s R

ate

2.87

%0.

50%

0.00

%0.

00%

4.16

%4.

11%

Byp

asse

d0.

91%

2.81

%3.

70%

1.38

%0.

72%

0.04

%

n

20

711

339

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.03

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

n20

69

340

7

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.3:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Urb

an A

reas

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

98.2

2%96

.98%

97.6

2%94

.30%

97.9

4%95

.58%

n25

920

546

13

M

edia

n99

.00%

98.0

0%96

.50%

96.5

0%99

.00%

97.0

0%

Acc

epte

d91

.95%

91.5

4%84

.66%

80.8

6%80

.47%

92.1

8%

n

249

195

4512

Med

ian

90.0

5%93

.00%

90.0

0%85

.00%

88.0

0%90

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

1.51

%1.

68%

15.7

3%6.

53%

12.8

5%1.

49%

n22

814

340

9

M

edia

n1.

00%

0.06

%5.

00%

5.00

%4.

50%

2.00

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

78.6

7%67

.02%

59.1

3%80

.87%

82.4

7%87

.87%

n21

917

542

10

M

edia

n85

.00%

96.0

0%75

.00%

85.0

0%95

.00%

92.5

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge74

.23%

57.3

0%71

.07%

63.9

0%70

.26%

53.5

8%

n

229

195

419

Med

ian

70.5

0%85

.00%

68.0

0%75

.00%

85.0

0%70

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.4:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Sub

urba

n A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.05

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

01%

0.07

%0.

01%

0.07

%0.

02%

0.13

%0.

01%

0.49

%0.

02%

n30

1330

1434

930

1026

1034

9

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.01

%0.

22%

0.01

%

n

3013

3011

349

3010

2610

339

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%8.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

33.3

3%16

.67%

78.3

8%14

.29%

66.6

7%10

0.00

%45

.00%

25.0

0%

Byp

asse

d0.

01%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

22%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

27

1018

529

428

918

627

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

09%

0.00

%

n

2710

154

285

3010

114

276

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.48

%0.

48%

0.93

%0.

25%

0.43

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

00%

n30

1027

833

929

1227

1234

11

M

edia

n0.

55%

0.31

%1.

15%

0.23

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

11%

0.07

%0.

24%

0.04

%0.

13%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%

n

308

248

339

3012

2712

3411

Med

ian

0.03

%0.

04%

0.16

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

24.0

8%11

.53%

24.6

1%17

.39%

29.4

1%43

.33%

---10

0.00

%0.

00%

50.0

0%10

0.00

%---

Byp

asse

d0.

12%

0.04

%0.

10%

0.03

%0.

46%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

27

716

529

428

1219

728

7

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

06%

0.00

%0.

09%

0.00

%0.

12%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

307

125

296

2812

177

287

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.4 (

Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Sub

urba

n A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.05

%0.

01%

0.26

%0.

12%

0.42

%0.

09%

0.13

%0.

01%

0.02

%0.

05%

0.27

%0.

00%

n30

1026

934

729

1125

934

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

08%

0.02

%0.

30%

0.02

%0.

01%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.00

%

n

3010

259

337

2911

259

345

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

29.2

1%18

.60%

70.5

9%23

.81%

6.45

%66

.67%

0.00

%0.

00%

63.6

4%---

Byp

asse

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

28

1016

527

427

1113

328

4

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

03%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.01

%0.

09%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

2910

136

284

2711

113

274

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.5:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in S

ubur

ban

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

3.42

%2.

79%

9.69

%1.

96%

10.9

9%1.

74%

2.60

%1.

31%

6.64

%1.

06%

5.33

%0.

11%

n26

724

734

526

724

634

6

M

edia

n2.

72%

1.20

%7.

50%

2.00

%9.

00%

0.27

%1.

67%

0.38

%5.

00%

0.73

%0.

83%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

50%

0.16

%0.

98%

0.21

%1.

71%

0.17

%0.

44%

0.04

%1.

80%

0.09

%0.

22%

0.02

%

n

276

255

346

267

265

347

Med

ian

0.38

%0.

08%

0.80

%0.

13%

1.00

%0.

06%

0.08

%0.

00%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

15.1

5%5.

22%

12.3

1%9.

39%

15.5

6%12

.43%

16.9

5%2.

78%

33.0

6%8.

63%

4.12

%27

.38%

Byp

asse

d2.

63%

0.01

%1.

00%

0.29

%1.

66%

0.09

%0.

67%

0.01

%0.

72%

0.04

%1.

16%

0.00

%

n

23

414

328

323

614

329

4

M

edia

n0.

40%

0.00

%0.

83%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

71%

0.07

%0.

45%

0.10

%2.

04%

0.07

%0.

08%

0.01

%0.

05%

0.04

%0.

12%

0.00

%

n

286

92

305

277

103

294

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

05%

0.00

%0.

07%

0.10

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

0.80

%1.

08%

1.10

%0.

40%

2.92

%0.

07%

n27

825

533

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

50%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.02

%0.

08%

0.02

%0.

08%

0.02

%

n

278

265

325

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.52

%2.

12%

7.52

%4.

00%

2.54

%25

.00%

Byp

asse

d0.

17%

0.00

%0.

33%

0.00

%0.

29%

0.00

%

n

23

615

329

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.06

%0.

00%

n26

811

328

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.6:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Sub

urba

n A

reas

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

96.5

0%95

.08%

79.1

4%97

.73%

98.7

1%97

.39%

n29

826

833

7

M

edia

n98

.00%

96.5

0%98

.00%

99.0

0%10

0.00

%99

.00%

Acc

epte

d73

.04%

76.2

2%78

.11%

91.7

8%87

.23%

85.7

1%

n

287

258

337

Med

ian

90.0

0%95

.00%

90.0

0%96

.00%

90.0

0%90

.00%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

29.4

1%8.

82%

6.35

%0.

38%

13.1

9%11

.08%

n25

516

633

4

M

edia

n1.

00%

0.00

%2.

00%

0.50

%5.

00%

7.50

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

58.3

9%43

.05%

50.3

1%43

.35%

75.2

1%74

.22%

n19

316

632

5

M

edia

n60

.00%

22.5

0%50

.00%

25.0

0%84

.00%

85.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge45

.58%

63.8

0%61

.28%

75.5

7%64

.09%

57.5

3%

n

245

217

325

Med

ian

45.0

0%60

.00%

50.0

0%85

.00%

75.0

0%85

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.7:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Rur

al A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.08

%0.

01%

0.07

%0.

01%

0.06

%0.

03%

0.26

%0.

09%

0.31

%0.

03%

0.54

%0.

08%

n57

3351

2623

658

3251

2322

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.08

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

13%

0.06

%0.

15%

0.02

%0.

36%

0.03

%

n

5630

4925

236

5732

5021

225

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

20.4

1%0.

00%

5.56

%0.

00%

100.

00%

0.00

%50

.62%

69.3

9%47

.06%

66.6

7%66

.67%

21.0

5%

Byp

asse

d0.

03%

0.00

%0.

34%

0.01

%0.

46%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

05%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

50

2531

1623

650

2636

1620

4

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

64%

0.00

%0.

29%

0.08

%0.

18%

0.01

%0.

09%

0.01

%

n

4925

2915

226

5126

3112

185

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

1.28

%0.

49%

1.08

%0.

64%

0.81

%0.

11%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

n58

3253

2423

957

3552

2723

9

M

edia

n0.

30%

0.33

%0.

80%

0.63

%0.

00%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

19%

0.15

%0.

36%

0.21

%0.

17%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

5732

5223

229

5634

5227

239

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

05%

0.29

%0.

19%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

14.4

3%29

.33%

33.0

3%33

.16%

21.4

3%13

.33%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%---

------

Byp

asse

d0.

19%

0.07

%0.

41%

0.32

%0.

44%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

49

2135

1321

650

2835

1823

9

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

23%

0.03

%0.

27%

0.12

%0.

25%

0.04

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

5324

3116

206

4927

3117

229

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.7 (

Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Rur

al A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.10

%0.

02%

0.22

%0.

18%

1.04

%0.

02%

0.10

%0.

03%

0.08

%0.

04%

1.13

%0.

00%

n58

3352

2523

758

3152

2423

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

02%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

17%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

81%

0.00

%

n

5733

5124

236

5831

5023

236

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

16.1

3%0.

00%

14.4

1%5.

36%

16.6

7%40

.00%

0.00

%0.

00%

9.52

%0.

00%

71.7

9%---

Byp

asse

d0.

02%

0.00

%0.

12%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

06%

0.00

%

n

53

2735

1522

551

2730

1523

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

01%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.01

%0.

06%

0.01

%0.

03%

0.02

%0.

03%

0.01

%0.

32%

0.00

%

n

5327

3116

216

5227

2815

236

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.8:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in R

ural

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

4.87

%5.

61%

9.06

%14

.14%

10.2

0%1.

08%

3.10

%2.

84%

3.38

%2.

02%

3.38

%0.

57%

n57

2851

2122

458

2750

1923

4

M

edia

n4.

00%

3.78

%4.

77%

2.50

%7.

92%

0.68

%1.

83%

2.00

%1.

33%

0.88

%2.

00%

0.28

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

54%

0.57

%0.

70%

0.79

%2.

83%

0.44

%0.

14%

0.17

%0.

20%

0.15

%0.

78%

0.07

%

n

5628

5119

214

5727

5019

224

Med

ian

0.31

%0.

35%

0.43

%0.

14%

1.18

%0.

28%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

Su

cces

s R

ate

11.0

0%10

.18%

7.72

%5.

06%

27.6

3%40

.30%

4.52

%5.

73%

5.85

%7.

26%

23.0

8%12

.86%

Byp

asse

d0.

70%

0.72

%1.

14%

0.28

%1.

07%

0.00

%0.

37%

0.44

%0.

58%

0.00

%0.

52%

0.00

%

n

47

2130

1021

347

2029

1121

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.18

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

40%

0.54

%0.

58%

0.18

%1.

10%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.04

%0.

02%

0.03

%0.

43%

0.00

%

n

5525

2812

193

5122

2713

213

Med

ian

0.10

%0.

13%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

1.07

%0.

41%

1.22

%1.

62%

0.35

%0.

22%

n58

3049

1823

4

M

edia

n0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

08%

0.04

%0.

13%

0.10

%0.

17%

0.00

%

n

5630

4917

233

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

7.13

%11

.08%

10.8

3%5.

99%

50.0

0%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

07%

0.04

%0.

28%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

51

2529

1222

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.01

%0.

00%

0.09

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

n52

2627

1321

3

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.9:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r P

lea

Bar

gain

s in

Rur

al A

reas

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

96.7

3%97

.59%

94.3

3%95

.58%

95.8

3%98

.83%

n57

2851

1823

5

M

edia

n99

.00%

99.0

0%95

.00%

95.0

0%99

.00%

99.0

0%

Acc

epte

d87

.92%

83.8

0%88

.73%

84.3

7%78

.83%

84.5

9%

n

5627

5118

224

Med

ian

90.0

0%92

.00%

90.0

0%90

.00%

90.0

0%90

.50%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

5.40

%5.

72%

10.2

6%25

.08%

4.52

%3.

59%

n52

2337

1521

3

M

edia

n3.

00%

2.00

%5.

00%

5.00

%5.

00%

2.00

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

58.6

0%62

.07%

66.3

2%61

.89%

79.3

1%84

.27%

n51

2243

1521

3

M

edia

n80

.00%

80.0

0%72

.50%

65.0

0%80

.00%

85.0

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge61

.34%

73.8

4%71

.06%

63.8

3%71

.81%

80.7

7%

n

5322

4817

223

Med

ian

70.0

0%75

.00%

70.0

0%60

.00%

83.1

3%85

.00%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.10:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Mix

ed A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.02

%0.

01%

0.06

%0.

06%

0.10

%0.

00%

0.08

%0.

01%

0.10

%0.

31%

0.24

%0.

03%

n16

1016

319

415

716

220

6

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.17

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

01%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.19

%0.

09%

0.01

%

n

1510

162

195

157

162

205

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

10%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

20.0

0%0.

00%

0.00

%---

12.5

0%0.

00%

37.5

0%60

.00%

37.5

0%16

.67%

Byp

asse

d0.

01%

0.01

%0.

08%

0.62

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

09%

0.02

%0.

03%

0.93

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

14

97

217

212

69

220

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.33

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.50

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

23%

0.01

%0.

11%

0.06

%0.

36%

0.00

%

n

149

73

172

136

92

195

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.08

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

En

trap

men

tSt

atu

te o

f L

imit

atio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.84

%0.

16%

1.32

%6.

20%

0.48

%0.

12%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

n15

616

320

516

915

219

5

M

edia

n1.

20%

0.11

%0.

38%

4.00

%0.

00%

0.08

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

10%

0.01

%0.

23%

0.03

%0.

09%

0.01

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

136

151

195

169

142

195

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

11.7

6%5.

88%

16.3

6%0.

38%

18.7

5%12

.07%

------

------

------

Byp

asse

d0.

24%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.07

%0.

09%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

14

610

120

414

98

219

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.07

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

156

81

184

149

92

185

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Insa

nit

yD

iplo

mat

ic I

mm

un

ity

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.10

(Con

tinu

ed):

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

rim

inal

Def

ense

s in

Mix

ed A

reas

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

0.10

%0.

04%

0.08

%0.

05%

0.29

%0.

01%

0.15

%0.

07%

0.00

%0.

09%

0.27

%0.

01%

n16

816

319

616

716

220

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.03

%0.

06%

0.00

%

n

168

163

196

167

162

205

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

02%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%50

.00%

0.00

%33

.33%

12.5

0%0.

00%

---33

.33%

22.2

2%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

n

13

89

319

515

79

220

5

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

04%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

12%

0.00

%

n

148

93

185

157

82

195

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Dou

ble

Jeo

par

dy

Rea

son

able

Mis

take

of

Law

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


Tab

le G

.11:

Res

ults

by

Res

pond

ent

Typ

e fo

r C

onst

itut

iona

l Evi

dent

iary

Cla

ims

in M

ixed

Are

as

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Self

Lo

cale

Off

ered

6.46

%10

.54%

3.51

%15

.30%

13.2

2%0.

15%

5.23

%13

.05%

1.52

%10

.12%

5.27

%0.

01%

n15

514

320

315

514

320

4

M

edia

n2.

08%

3.33

%3.

36%

16.6

7%6.

04%

0.25

%0.

63%

1.67

%1.

00%

9.78

%1.

33%

0.00

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

37%

0.05

%0.

30%

0.82

%1.

52%

0.01

%0.

15%

0.04

%0.

06%

0.08

%0.

55%

0.00

%

n

155

152

202

155

152

204

Med

ian

0.29

%0.

04%

0.26

%1.

78%

0.21

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

35%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

5.75

%0.

49%

9.20

%4.

65%

11.4

9%3.

70%

2.84

%0.

32%

3.96

%0.

66%

10.4

5%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d1.

79%

0.07

%0.

14%

0.25

%0.

08%

0.00

%0.

15%

0.11

%0.

44%

0.00

%0.

22%

0.00

%

n

14

54

217

313

58

219

4

M

edia

n0.

45%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.13

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

No

t P

rose

cute

d0.

74%

0.04

%0.

55%

0.36

%1.

02%

0.01

%0.

03%

0.05

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

29%

0.00

%

n

155

72

193

155

82

194

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

33%

0.33

%0.

50%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

4th

Am

end

men

t A

rres

t, S

earc

h &

Sei

zure

5th

Am

end

men

t In

terr

ogat

ion

s &

Co

nfe

ssio

ns

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

3.10

%20

.16%

0.37

%0.

27%

0.89

%0.

01%

n14

415

320

4

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

17%

0.02

%

Su

cces

sfu

l0.

03%

0.02

%0.

01%

0.03

%0.

21%

0.00

%

n

144

153

203

Med

ian

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

Su

cces

s R

ate

0.99

%0.

12%

3.33

%10

.00%

23.3

3%0.

00%

Byp

asse

d0.

06%

0.02

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

03%

0.00

%

n

12

47

219

4

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.21

%0.

00%

n12

47

219

4

M

edia

n0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%0.

00%

0.00

%

6th

Am

end

men

t Id

enti

fica

tion

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney


TA

BL

EG

.12:

RE

SUL

TS

BY

RE

SPO

ND

EN

TT

YP

E F

OR

PL

EA

BA

RG

AIN

S IN

MIX

ED

AR

EA

S

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Self

Loc

ale

Off

ered

95.4

4%98

.40%

97.5

5%84

.63%

96.7

1%99

.28%

n16

615

420

4

M

edia

n98

.50%

99.0

0%98

.50%

95.0

0%99

.50%

99.0

0%

Acc

epte

d88

.32%

89.6

6%91

.92%

92.8

6%89

.95%

69.4

8%

n

166

154

202

Med

ian

90.0

0%90

.00%

90.0

0%90

.00%

90.0

0%91

.25%

Not

Pro

secu

ted

7.17

%6.

25%

14.1

3%0.

41%

13.7

6%9.

59%

n16

612

318

2

M

edia

n1.

50%

1.00

%1.

00%

2.00

%5.

00%

7.50

%

Red

uce

d S

ente

nce

53.4

3%87

.29%

59.8

7%75

.72%

80.4

2%70

.41%

n15

612

419

2

M

edia

n65

.00%

82.5

0%55

.00%

80.0

0%85

.00%

72.5

0%

Red

uce

d C

har

ge48

.93%

87.7

1%70

.11%

84.7

4%70

.29%

91.2

7%

n

166

144

192

Med

ian

55.0

0%75

.00%

77.5

0%83

.50%

75.0

0%72

.50%

Ple

a B

arga

ins

Pro

secu

tor

Jud

geD

efen

se A

ttor

ney

Documents

Frequency and Success: An Empirical Study of Criminal Law ... · A cover letter giving background on the purpose of the study, a copy of the survey, and a business reply envelope