Surging criminal court dockets have fostered an interest in differentiated case management and specialized dockets to expedite the processing of criminal cases. An experiment was conducted on a modified differentiated case management process to determine the impact of the review and screening on case outcomes (e.g., type of case disposition and type of sentence) and system outcomes (e.g., amount of bed space consumed during pretrial and sentenced periods). Overall, this research confirms that an early screening process has many benefits by reducing the average length of time for court disposition, length of time for pretrial incarceration, and the average sentence length for cases. A possible drawback of the process is the potential for net widening. Results from the experiment are also useful in providing new insights into the eligibility and impact of such processes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Bar Association
. 1991. Strategies for Courts to Cope with the Caseload Pressures of Drug Cases. Chicago: American Bar Association.
2.
Bureau of Justice Assistance
. 1993. Differentiated Case Management: Program Brief. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
3.
Bureau of Justice Statistics
. 1992. Correctional Populations in the United States, 1990. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
4.
Church, T. A.
, J. L. Carlson, Lee, and T. Tan. 1978. Justice Delayed: The Pace of Litigation in Urban Trial Courts. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts.
5.
Cooper, C. S.
and J. Trotter. 1994. “Recent Developments in Drug Case Management: Reengineering the Judicial Process.”The Justice System Journal17 (1): 83-98.
6.
Cooper, C. S.
, J. Trotter, D. Saari, and J. Grossman. 1993. Expedited Drug Case Management Project. Washington, DC: The American University.
7.
Davis, R.
, B. E. Smith, and A. J. Lurigio. 1994. “Court Strategies to Cope with Rising Drug Caseloads.”The Justice System Journal17 (1): 11-19.
8.
Eisenstein, James
and H. Jacobs. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.
9.
Evans, W. M.
1978. Interorganizational Relations. New York: Free Press.
10.
Feeley, M. M.
1979. The Process Is the Punishment. New York: Russell Sage.
11.
Feeley, M. M.
and M. H. Lazerson. 1983. “Police-Prosecutor Relationships: An Interorganizational Perspective.” Pp. 216-241 in Empirical Theories about Courts, edited by K. O. Boyum and L. Mather. White Plains, NY: Longman.
12.
Frazier, C.
and J. Cochran. 1986. “Detention of Juveniles: Its Effect on Subsequent Juvenile Court Processing Decisions.”Youth & Society17 (3): 286-305.
13.
Goldkamp, J. S.
1984. Judicial Guidelines for Bail: The Philadelphia Experiment. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
14.
Jacobs, H.
1983. “Courts as Organizations.” Pp. 189-214 in Empirical Theories about Courts, edited by K. O. Boyum and L. Mather. White Plains, NY: Longman.
15.
Jacoby, J. E.1994. “Expedited Drug Case Management Programs: Some Lessons in Case Management Reform.”The Justice System Journal17 (1): 19-40.
16.
Jacoby, J. E.
and H. P. Gramckow. 1994. “Prosecuting Drug Offenders.” Pp. 151-171 in Drugs and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives, edited by D. L. MacKenzie and C. Uchida. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
17.
Krislov, S.
1983. “Theoretical Perspectives on Case Load Studies: A Critique and a Beginning.” Pp. 161-180 in Empirical Theories about Courts, edited by K. O. Boyum and L. Mather. White Plains, NY: Longman.
18.
Mather, L.
1979. Plea Bargaining or Trial? The Process of Criminal Case Disposition. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
19.
Mott, T.1994. “Reducing Delay and Trial Date Continuances.”The Judges' JournalWinter: 6-9.
20.
Palumbo, D. M. Clifford
and Z. Snyder-Joy. 1992. “From Net Widening to Intermediate Sanctions: The Transformation of Alternatives to Incarceration from Benevolence to Malevolence.” Pp. 211-229 in Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions, edited by J. Byrne, A. J. Lurigio, and J. Petersilia. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
21.
Perlstein, J.
and W. Henry. 1986. The Implications of Effective Case Processing for Crowded Jails: A Manual for Prosecutors. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
22.
Smith, B. E.
, R. C. Davis, S. R. Goretsky, A. J. Lurigio, and S. J. Popkin. 1993. “Drug Night Courts: How Feasible Are They? Assessing Cook County's Example.”Bureau of Justice Assistance Bulletin1 (1).
23.
Smith, B. E.
, A. J. Lurigio, R. C. Davis, S. G. Elstein, and S. J. Popkin. 1994. “Burning the Midnight Oil: An Examination of Cook County's Night Drug Court.”Justice System Journal17 (1): 41-52.
24.
Taxman, F. S.
, L. Elis, K. Moline, and S. Weisman. 1997. Quality Case Review: Final Report. College Park: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.
25.
Taxman, F. S.
, S. Weisman, and T. Fletcher. 1996. An Analysis of Pretrial Processing in Baltimore City, Maryland Criminal Justice System: A Rationale for Quality Case Review Procedures. College Park: Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Maryland.
26.
Tonry, M.
1996. Sentencing Matters. New York: Oxford University Press.
27.
Wynn, D.1989. “Right to a Speedy Trial.”Howard Law Journal32:137-148.
28.
Zhang, S.1996. “The Efficiency of Working under One Roof: An Evaluation of Los Angeles County Juvenile Justice Centers.”Crime & Delinquency42 (2): 257-268.
