Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 29, 2024 Mon
Time: 10:11 pm
Time: 10:11 pm
Results for court procedures
11 results foundAuthor: Bornstein, Brian H. Title: Reducing Courts’ Failure to Appear Rate: A Procedural Justice Approach Summary: Failure-to-appear (FTA) is a significant problem in the nation’s courts. This paper examines the effectiveness of using different kinds of written reminders to reduce misdemeanants’ FTA rates. Misdemeanants (n = 7865) in 14 Nebraska counties were randomly assigned to one of four conditions prior to their court date: no reminder (control), reminder-only, reminder with information on the negative consequences of FTA (reminder-sanctions), or reminder with information on sanctions as well as the procedural justice benefits of appearing (reminder-combined). A subset of defendants (n = 452) was also surveyed after their scheduled court date to assess their perceptions of procedural fairness (both in general and regarding participants’ specific court experience) and their level of trust/confidence in the courts. Reminders significantly reduced FTA overall, and more substantive reminders were significantly more effective than a simple reminder. Specifically, the FTA rate was 12.6% in the control condition, 10.9% in the reminder-only condition, 8.3% in the reminder-sanctions condition, and 9.8% in the reminder-combined condition. The FTA rate was higher for some categories of misdemeanors than others, and for defendants with multiple charges (15.4% if two or more charges, versus 5.4% for one charge). The baseline FTA rate was higher for Blacks (18.7%) than for Whites (11.7%) and Hispanics (10.5%), but this difference was not statistically significant when controlling for other factors such as number of offenses and type of offense. Survey results indicated that misdemeanants’ trust/confidence assessments, as well as their perceptions of procedural justice, were related to their appearance in court. Defendants who appeared in court had higher institutional confidence and felt they had been treated more fairly by the criminal justice system (means = 3.23 and 3.52, respectively, on a 5-point scale) than non-appearers (means = 3.02 and 3.23, respectively). Institutional confidence and procedural justice were themselves highly correlated. Defendants with low trust in the courts were less likely to appear than those with higher trust when there was no reminder, but this relationship was not statistically significant when there was a reminder. The study has important implications for public policy and pretrial services, such as improving system efficiencies and increasing criminal defendants’ perceptions of procedural justice. We recommend that courts, especially in larger jurisdictions, adopt a reminder program for defendants and engage in outreach to increase offenders’ trust/confidence. Details: Final Report to the U.S. National Institute of Justice, 2011. 62p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed July 1, 2011 at: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234370.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/234370.pdf Shelf Number: 121934 Keywords: Court DelaysCourt ProceduresCourts (U.S.)Failure to Appear |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Tennessee's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Tennessee assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana. In the future, it plans to release reports in, at a minimum, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Tennessee death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2007. 422p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/tennessee/finalreport.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/tennessee/finalreport.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124374 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Tennessee)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Tennessee)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Georgia's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As our capital punishment system now stands, however, we fall short in protecting these bedrock principles. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that there is a crisis in our country’s death penalty system and that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine sixteen U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. The Project is conducting state assessments in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. These assessments examine the above-mentioned jurisdictions’ death penalty systems, using as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration, including defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project includes for review five new areas associated with death penalty administration, including the preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each state’s assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based Assessment Team, which is comprised of or has access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) evolution of the state death penalty statute; (3) law enforcement tools and techniques; (4) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (5) prosecutors; (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (9) clemency; (10) jury instructions; (11) judicial independence; (12) the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings provide information about how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law of the land in each of the assessment states and because the ABA has no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. Moreover, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the Georgia death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team is unanimous in many of the conclusions. Even though not all team members support the call for a moratorium, they are unanimous in their belief that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly enhance the accuracy and fairness of Georgia’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 391p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/georgia/report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/georgia/report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124372 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Georgia)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Georgia)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Alabama's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As our capital punishment system now stands, however, we fall short in protecting these bedrock principles. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that there is a crisis in our country’s death penalty system and that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine sixteen U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. The Project has conducted or is conducting state assessments in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. This assessment of Alabama is the second in this series. These assessments examine the above-mentioned jurisdictions’ death penalty systems, using as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration, including defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project includes for review five new areas associated with death penalty administration, including the preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each state’s assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based Assessment Team, which is comprised of or has access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) evolution of the state death penalty statute; (3) law enforcement tools and techniques; (4) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (5) prosecutors; (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (9) clemency; (10) jury instructions; (11) judicial independence; (12) the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings provide information about how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law of the land in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. Moreover, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the Alabama death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team is unanimous in many of the conclusions, including its belief that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly enhance the accuracy and fairness of Alabama’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 300p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/alabama/report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/alabama/report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124373 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Alabama)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Alabama)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Kentucky Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Kentucky's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments, conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues, publishes periodic reports, encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions, convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty, and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project began in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and minimize the risk of executing the innocent. It undertook assessments examining the administration of the death penalty in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee and released reports on these states’ capital punishment systems from 2006 through 2007. A summary report was also published in 2007 in which the findings of the eight reports completed to date were compiled. Due in large part to the success of the state assessments produced in the eight jurisdictions described above, the Project began a second round of assessments in late 2009. In addition to this report on Kentucky, the Project also plans to release reports in, at a minimum, Missouri, Texas, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. Past state assessment reports have been used as blueprints for state-based study commissions on the death penalty, served as the basis for new legislative and court rule changes on the administration of the death penalty, and generally informed decision-makers’ and the public’s understanding of the problems affecting the fairness and accuracy of their state’s death penalty system. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments in 2006: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, (2) DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence, (3) law enforcement tools and techniques, (4) crime laboratories and medical examiner offices, (5) prosecutors, (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process, (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings, (9) clemency, (10) jury instructions, (11) judicial independence, (12) racial and ethnic minorities, and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The findings of each assessment team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations, impose reforms, or in some cases, impose moratoria. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Kentucky Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this Report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail, followed by an Appendix. The Project and the Kentucky Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Kentucky death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any factual errors or omissions in this Report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 520p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-content/files_flutter/1323199256kydeathpenaltyreport_120711.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-content/files_flutter/1323199256kydeathpenaltyreport_120711.pdf Shelf Number: 124371 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Kentucky)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Kentucky)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Missouri's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it offers a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide suspension of executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the fall of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project began in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In its first round of assessments, the Project examined the administration of the death penalty in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee and released reports on these states’ capital punishment systems from 2006 to 2007. A summary report was also published in 2007 in which the findings of the eight reports were compiled. Due in large part to the success of the state assessments produced in the eight jurisdictions described above, the Project began a second round of assessments in late 2009. In addition to this Report on Missouri, the Project released its report on Kentucky in December 2011. The Project also plans to release reports in Texas and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. Past state assessment reports have been used as blueprints for state-based study commissions on the death penalty, served as the basis for legislative and court rule changes, and generally informed decision-makers’ and the public’s understanding of the problems affecting the fairness and accuracy of their state’s death penalty system. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments in 2006: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment is conducted by a state-based assessment team. Team members typically include current and former judges, state legislators, current and former prosecutors, current and former defense attorneys, state bar association leaders, and law professors. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. They are also not required to support the Protocols, but they have agreed to follow them for the purposes of this assessment. The state assessment teams are responsible for analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. The findings of each assessment team illuminate how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and identify areas of strength and areas in need of reform. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a synopsis of the findings and proposals of the Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this Report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail, followed by an Appendix. Citations in the Report conform to rules set forth by the Supreme Court of Missouri, and thus deviate from The Bluebook citation rules where appropriate. The Project and the Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Missouri death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any factual errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2012. 488p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/death_penalty_moratorium/final_missouri_assessment_report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/death_penalty_moratorium/final_missouri_assessment_report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124370 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Missouri)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Missouri)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Ohio's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Ohio assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama, Arizona, Florida Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee. In the future, it plans to release an additional report in Pennsylvania. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive statefunded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Ohio death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team believes that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly improve Ohio’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2007. 495p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 108608 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Ohio)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Ohio)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Florida Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Florida's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Florida assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama, Arizona, and Georgia. In the future, it plans to release reports in, at a minimum, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Florida Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Florida Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Florida death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 426p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/florida/report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/florida/report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 103440 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Florida)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Florida)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Arizona Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Arizona's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As our capital punishment system now stands, however, we fall short in protecting these bedrock principles in all cases. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that there is a crisis in our country’s death penalty system and that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine a number of U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Arizona assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama and Georgia and is conducting state assessments and releasing reports in, at a minimum, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. These assessments examine the above-mentioned jurisdictions’ death penalty systems, using as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration, including defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project includes for review five new areas associated with the administration of the death penalty, including the preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each state’s assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team, which is comprised of or has access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors and defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) evolution of the state death penalty statute; (3) law enforcement tools and techniques; (4) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (5) prosecutors; (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (9) clemency; (10) jury instructions; (11) judicial independence; (12) the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings provide information about how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law of the land in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. Moreover, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the death penalty in Arizona. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Arizona Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team believes that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly improve Arizona’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 354p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 103267 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Arizona)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Arizona)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: Judicial Council of California. Administrative Office of the Courts Title: Effective Court Practice for Abused Elders: A Report to the Archstone Foundation Summary: This report is the product of a two-year research grant awarded to the Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, by the Archstone Foundation under its Elder Abuse and Neglect Initiative. The objectives of the study were to identify courts that have adopted a specialized response to elder abuse, document innovative and effective practices in handling elder abuse cases, and assess the needs of abused and neglected elders who come before the courts. The overall goal of the study was to gather and disseminate information to help courts improve the quality of justice for elderly victims who come before the courts. Because elder abuse appears in the courts under the guise of many different case types, this study takes a broad view of elder abuse in the court context, examining issues and court programs related to probate conservatorship, restraining order (elder and dependent adult abuse, domestic violence, or civil harassment), family law, criminal, unlawful detainer, and other civil matters. Because the timing of this project coincided with information gathering and development of recommendations by the Judicial Council’s Probate Conservatorship Task Force, the project team chose to place somewhat less emphasis on issues related to probate conservatorship, to both minimize redundancy in reports and avoid overburdening the courts with requests for information or study participation. The study also views the specialized response to elder abuse with a wide lens, exploring initiatives not directly court-related, but with a potential impact on the courts or highlighting a key partnership. The research design called for the identification of four “study courts” that had implemented or were interested in implementing some kind of specialized response to elder abuse. The study courts were identified through publicizing the study and the opportunity to participate in Court News Update, review of Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC) project documents and discussions with AOC colleagues, and referrals from professional contacts. The four courts selected for participation in the study represent the following counties: Alameda, Orange, San Francisco, and Ventura. Site visits to those counties included semistructured interviews with a variety of court personnel and justice partners, observation and documentation of court and program operations, and court file reviews. To supplement the in-depth examination of initiatives in the four courts, the study included a statewide survey on the court response to elder abuse and incorporated other available and relevant statewide data. In addition to the following report, which includes an overview of elder abuse issues and highlights court programs and initiatives to address them, the other major product of this study was the development of a basic elder abuse curriculum for the courts, developed by Candace J. Heisler, J.D., a retired assistant district attorney with extensive expertise in domestic violence and elder abuse issues. The primary audience for this curriculum is judicial officers, but a variety of court staff will benefit from it, as well. The curriculum is included in the PowerPoint presentation entitled Elder Abuse: An Overview for the California Courts on the enclosed CD. The CD also contains report appendixes (more detailed write-ups of data collection efforts, statistical profiles for the study counties, and data collection instruments) and a list of key resources for the courts on elder abuse, including links to Web sites, where available. Chapter 1 of this report provides an overview of the elderly population and elder abuse, including issues for the community as a whole and for the courts specifically. Chapter 2 reviews national, state, and local programs and initiatives developed in response to elder abuse, as well as trends that are likely to have an impact on agencies that serve abused elders. Chapter 3 highlights what is known about elder abuse in the courts at the state level, including a review of the results of the statewide survey on the court response to elder abuse. Chapter 4 describes the elder abuse initiatives adopted by the four study courts, highlights issues faced by the courts and community in serving elder abuse victims, and provides some background data on elders in the county and elder abuse in the court. Chapter 5 summarizes the types of specialized programs or initiatives in which courts could become involved to better respond to elder abuse; it draws on examples from the study courts as well as other significant national initiatives. Details: San Francisco: Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts, Center for Families, Children & the Courts, 2008. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 24, 2012 at http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/EffectiveCourtAbusedEldersMain.pdf Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: http://www.courts.ca.gov/documents/EffectiveCourtAbusedEldersMain.pdf Shelf Number: 124733 Keywords: Court ProceduresCourtsElder Abuse |
Author: Farley, Erin J. Title: Improving Courtroom Communication: A Procedural Justice Experiment in Milwaukee Summary: Research indicates that litigants are more likely to leave court with a positive impression of their experience and to comply with court orders in the future when they perceive the court process as fair. This research underlines the importance of procedural justice. In court settings, procedural justice concerns the role of fair and respectful procedures and interpersonal treatment in shaping assessments of legal authorities and reactions to specific case outcomes. In 2011, with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Center for Court Innovation and the National Judicial College launched a pilot demonstration project at the Milwaukee County Criminal Court with the goal of enhancing defendant perceptions of procedural justice by improving the oral, written, and nonverbal communication used by judges in the courtroom. In the initial months of the project, Center staff worked with a group of experts - judges, legal theorists, communications experts, and others - to develop a one-day training for judges and other court staff that aimed to improve courtroom communication practices. Seven Milwaukee judges from misdemeanor and felony courtrooms were recruited to participate in the demonstration (in addition to representatives from partner agencies such as the public defender's office and the district attorney's office), which involved attending the project training, then developing and implementing individualized action plans to improve their communication with defendants. This report presents research findings from a quasi-experimental evaluation of the demonstration project as well as an analysis of the specific types of perceptions, courtroom actors, and defendant characteristics that play a role in shaping dynamics associated with procedural justice. Details: New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2014. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 28, 2014 at: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20Courtroom%20Communication.pdf Year: 2014 Country: United States URL: http://www.courtinnovation.org/sites/default/files/documents/Improving%20Courtroom%20Communication.pdf Shelf Number: 132202 Keywords: Communications Court PersonnelCourt ProceduresCourtsCriminal DefendantsJudgesProcedural Justice |