Since the 1970s, the U.S. Department of Justice has both funded and authored a variety of studies and reports relevant to the provision of indigent defense services. Where possible, links to the reports have been included and more will come on line in the coming months. As we work to make this a comprehensive bibliography of indigent defense materials authored or funded by the Department, please contact the Access to Justice Initiative at 202-514-5312 about any appropriate publications that may be missing from this list.
|OJP Fact Sheet: Indigent Defense||The Office of Justice Programs||2011||The Office of Justice Programs||This Fact Sheet offers a brief snapshot of the current state of indigent defense in the U.S. as well as links to other indigent-defense-related informational resources. (FS 000381, December 2011, OJP)|
|Indigent Defense Systems Analysis Project – Final Report (NCJ 043542)||Shelvin Singer, Beth Lynch, Karen Smith (National Legal Aid and Defender Association)||1976||The Law Enforcement Assistance Administration/National Institute Justice||This is a study of defense services for indigents and of plea-bargaining practices as they relate to indigent defendants. The study report offers a description of the staffing, operations, and caseloads of the defense system surveyed and an analysis of plea-bargaining practices in these systems.|
|Title: Indigent Defense: DOJ Could Increase Awareness of Eligible Funding and Better Determine the Extent to Which Funds Help Support This Purpose (NCJ 238757)||The Government Accountability Office||2012||The Government Accountability Office||This report addresses, for fiscal years 2005 through 2010, the (1) types of support DOJ provided for indigent defense; (2) extent to which eligible DOJ funding was allocated or awarded for indigent defense, the factors affecting these decisions, and DOJ’s actions to address them; (3) percentage of DOJ funding allocated for indigent defense and how it was used; (4) extent to which DOJ collects data on indigent defense funding; and (5) extent to which DOJ assesses the impacts of indigent defense grants, indigent defense programs have been evaluated, and DOJ has supported evaluation efforts. (NCJ 238757, May 2012)|
|Who’s Better at Defending Criminals? Does Type of Defense Attorney Matter in Terms of Producing Favorable Case Outcomes||Thomas H. Cohen||2011||The Bureau of Justice Statistics||This paper examines whether there are differences between defense counsel type and the adjudication and sentencing phases of criminal case processing. Results show that private attorneys and public defenders secure similar adjudication and sentencing outcomes for their clients. Defendants with assigned counsel, however, receive less favorable outcomes compared to their counterparts with public defenders. This article concludes by discussing the policy implications of these findings and possible avenues for future research.|
|North Carolina: An Assessment of Access to Counsel and Quality of Representation in Delinquency Proceedings (NCJ 204538)||Lynn Grindall and Patricia Puritz (American Bar Association and the Southern Juvenile Justice Center in collaboration with National Juvenile Defender Center and the North Carolina Office of Indigent Defense Services)||2003||Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention||This study assesses access to legal counsel and the quality of legal representation for juveniles in delinquency proceedings in North Carolina.|
|OJJDP Bulletin: Innovative Approaches to Juvenile Indigent Defense (NCJ 171151)||Patricia Puritz and Wendy Wan Long Shang (U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention)||1998||Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention||Several initiatives in Maryland, New York, and the District of Columbia that provide comprehensive and holistic legal representation for juveniles are profiled.|
Measuring the Effect of Defense Counsel on Homicide Case Outcomes (241158)
|James M. Anderson; Paul Heaton||2012||National Institute of Justice||
This study examined the impact of randomly assigned public defenders and court-appointed private attorneys in the outcome of criminal cases in Philadelphia, PA. The authors of this report used a sample dataset of 3,412 defendants charged with murder between 1994 and 2005. The study shows that compared to appointed counsel, public defenders reduce their client’s murder conviction rate by 19%, lowered the probability that their clients would receive a life sentence by 62%, and reduced overall expected time served in prison by 24.
|Predicting Erroneous Convictions: A Social Science Approach to Miscarriages of Justice (NCJ 241389)||Jon B. Gould (American University), Julia Carrano (American University), Richard Leo (University of San Francisco School of Law), Joseph Young (American University)||2012||National Institute of Justice||This study examines why innocent people are wrongfully convicted in certain cases yet acquitted in others. The researchers studied 460 violent felonies that occurred between 1980 and 2012 to identify ten factors that led to a wrongful conviction of an innocent person instead of a dismissal or acquittal. The final report offers recommendations to help prevent erroneous convictions, including recommendations on defense practice, exculpatory evidence, eyewitness identification, false confessions, forensic error, police misconduct, weak prosecution evidence, systemic failures and tunnel vision.|
|The Anatomy of Discretion: An Analysis of Prosecutorial Decision Making – Technical Report(NCJ 240334)||Bruce Frederick (Vera Institute of Justice) and Don Stemen (Loyola University Chicago)||2012||National Institute of Justice||Authors of this report followed two county prosecutors’ offices to examine the impact of legal, quasi-legal, and extra-legal factors on case outcomes throughout the prosecutorial process. The report identifies relationships, along with rules and resources, as contextual constraints that can trump prosecutorial evaluations of the strength and seriousness of the evidence and the defendant’s criminal history. While the report finds that prosecutors generally do not alter their decisions simply based on the relationship with the defense attorney, some newer ADAs expressed that a cooperative defense attorney would receive more cooperation from the prosecution, while an antagonistic relationship between the two could result in negative consequences , like less time to prepare, for the defense attorney.|
|Productivity and Resource Allocation in Prosecution and Public Defenders (NCJ 098920)||Joan E. Jacoby, E.C. Ratledge (Jefferson Institute for Justice Studies)||1983||National Institute of Justice||This report discusses the inadequacy of productivity measures for many public delivery systems and issues associated with labor as an input productivity models and also reports on research that measured the amount of prosecutor and public defender effort in processing cases to completion.|