Millions of people in the United States are convicted of misdemeanor crimes annually, yet we know little about the processes generating these convictions. The current research used 87,248 misdemeanor cases from an urban Florida county to examine predictors and punishments for quick plea dispositions—pleas entered at defendants’ first court appearance. Results indicate that the 47% of defendants who pleaded quickly were more likely to receive a non-carceral sentence and less likely to receive time-served only than those who pleaded later, but the probability of further jail time was essentially equal. In contrast, defendants convicted at trial faced a nearly threefold increase in the likelihood of jail time. These findings suggest that the process may be sufficiently onerous to induce quick pleas in misdemeanor cases, even when direct sentence benefits are unclear. The prevalence of quick pleas also indicates that the “bargaining” in plea bargaining could be overstated for misdemeanors.
BartlettJ. M.ZottoliT. M. (2021). The paradox of conviction probability: Mock defendants want better deals as risk of conviction increases. Law and Human Behavior, 45(1), 39–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000432
3.
BerubeR.WilfordM. M.RedlichA. D.WangY. (2022). Identifying patterns across the six canonical factors underlying wrongful convictions. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 3(3), 166–195. https://wclawr.org/index.php/wclr/issue/view/13/32
4.
BibasS. (2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of the trial. Harvard Law Review, 117(8), 2463–2547. https://doi.org/10.2307/4093404
5.
BoruchowitzR. C.BrinkM. N.DiminoM. (2009). Minor crimes, massive waste: The terrible toll of America’s broken misdemeanor courts. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. http://www.nacdl.org/misdemeanor
6.
BurkeJ. L.HealyJ.YangY. (2024). Reducing bias in the criminal legal system: A perspective from expected utility. Law and Human Behavior, 48(5–6), 356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000571
7.
BushwayS. D.RedlichA. D.NorrisR. J. (2014). An explicit test of plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial.”Criminology, 52(4), 723–754. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12054
DunleaR. R. (2022). “No idea whether he’s Black, White, or purple”: Colorblindness and cultural scripting in prosecution. Criminology, 60(2), 237–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12296
10.
DunleaR. R. (2024). The association between misdemeanor citation and jail placement. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 51(2), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231219800
11.
EarlJ. (2019). The process is the punishment revisited: Forty-year anniversary review.In SmithA.MaddanS. (Eds.), The lower criminal courts (pp. 24–31). Routledge.
12.
EdkinsV. A.RedlichA. D. (2019). A system of pleas: Social science’s contributions to the real legal system. Oxford University Press.
13.
FeeleyM. M. (1979). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. Russell Sage Foundation.
14.
FosterL. (2020). The price of justice: Fines, fees and the criminalization of poverty in the United States. University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review, 11(1), 1–32.
15.
Garnier-DykstraL. M.WilsonT. (2021). Behavioral economics and framing effects in guilty pleas: A defendant decision making experiment. Justice Quarterly, 38(2), 224–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1614208
HessickC. B. (2021). Punishment without trial: Why plea bargaining is a bad deal. Abrams Press.
18.
JainE. (2015). Arrests as regulation. Stanford Law Review, 67, 809–867.
19.
JohnsonB. D.RichardsonR. (2019). Race and plea bargaining. In EdkinsV. A.RedlichA. D. (Eds.), A system of pleas: Social science’s contributions to the real legal system (pp. 83–106). Oxford University Press.
Kohler-HausmannI. (2014). Managerial justice and mass misdemeanors. Stanford Law Review, 66(3), 611–693.
22.
Kohler-HausmannI. (2018). Misdemeanorland: Criminal courts and social control in an age of broken windows policing. Princeton University Press.
23.
KutateladzeB. L.AndiloroN. R.JohnsonB. D.SpohnC. C. (2014). Racial and ethnic disparity in prosecution and sentencing. Criminology, 52(3), 514–551. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12047
24.
KutateladzeB. L.LawsonV. Z. (2015). How bad arrests lead to bad prosecution: Exploring the impact of prior arrests on plea bargaining. Cardozo Law Review, 37, 973–994.
25.
KutateladzeB. L.LawsonV. Z.AndiloroN. R. (2015). Does evidence really matter? An exploratory analysis of the role of evidence in plea bargaining in felony drug cases. Law and Human Behavior, 39(5), 431–442. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb00000142
26.
LeeJ. G.RichardsonR. L. (2020). Race, ethnicity, and trial avoidance: A multilevel analysis. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(3), 422–451. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403418812998
27.
LiuL.DunleaR. R.KutateladzeB. L. (2022). Time for time: Uncovering case processing duration as a source of punitiveness. Crime & Delinquency, 68(9), 1375–1401. https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287211007745
28.
MessengerT. (2021). Profit and punishment: How America criminalizes the poor in the name of justice. Martin’s Press.
29.
MuñozE. A.FrengA. B. (2008). Age, racial/ethnic minority status, gender and misdemeanor sentencing. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 5(4), 29–57. https://doi.org/10.1300/J222v05n04_02
30.
NatapoffA. (2012). Misdemeanors. Southern California Law Review, 85(5), 1313–1376.
OmoriM.PetersenN. (2020). Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention, conviction, and sentencing. Criminology, 58(4), 678–713. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12257
33.
PetersenK.RedlichA. D.NorrisR. (2020). Diverging from the shadows: Explaining individual deviation from plea bargaining in the “shadow of the trial.”Journal of Experimental Criminology, 18, 321–342. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09449-4
34.
PetersenK.RedlichA. D.WilsonD. B. (2023). Where is the evidence? Comparing the effects of evidence strength and demographic characteristics on plea discounts. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 39(4), 919–949. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-022-09555-8
35.
PetersenN. (2019). Low-level, but high speed? Assessing pretrial detention effects on the timing and content of misdemeanor versus felony guilty pleas. Justice Quarterly, 36(7), 1314–1335. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2019.1639791
36.
PetersenN.OmoriM. (2020). Is the process the only punishment? Racial–ethnic disparities in lower-level courts. Law & Policy, 42(1), 56–77. https://doi.org/10.1111/lapo.12140
RedlichA. D.BeckerL.DervanL. E.DonnellyM. P.FrazierA.GallenM.Gazal-AyalO.HelmR. K.JohnsonB. D.MacLeanE.ReimerN. L.WilfordM. M.ZottoliT. M. (2025). Urgent issues and prospects in guilty plea research and practice. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 30(2), 193–211. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12306
SchneiderR. A.ZottoliT. M. (2019). Disentangling the effects of plea discount and potential trial sentence on decisions to plead guilty. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 24(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/lcrp.12157
42.
Scott v. Illinois, 440 U.S. 367 (1979).
43.
SehgalU.ZelonH.AlexanderL. (2014). State of injustice: How New York State turns its back on the right to counsel for the poor. New York Civil Liberties Union.
44.
ShumateR. (1991). I will not accept any more cases. Barrister, 18(4), 11–38.
45.
SmithA.MaddanS. (2011). Three-minute justice: Haste and waste in Florida’s misdemeanor courts. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.
46.
SmithA.MaddanS.PriceD. P.TvedtC. (2017). Rush to judgment: How South Carolina’s summary courts fail to protect constitutional rights. National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. https://www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice
SmithE. L.DuroseM. R.LanganP. A. (2008). State court processing of domestic violence cases [Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report]. US Office of Justice Programs. https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/scpdvc.pdf
49.
StevensonM.MaysonS. (2018). The scale of misdemeanor justice. Boston University Law Review, 98, 731–777.
50.
StuntzW. J. (2001). The pathological politics of criminal law. Michigan Law Review, 100(3), 505–600.
51.
TestaA.JohnsonB. D. (2020). Paying the trial tax: Race, guilty pleas, and disparity in prosecution. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 31(4), 500–531. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403419838025
52.
WilfordM. M.FrazierA.LoweA.NewsomeP.StrongH. V. (2025). Quick and dirty: An evaluation of plea colloquy validity in the virtual courtroom. Law and Human Behavior, 49(3), 311–322. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000619
53.
WilfordM. M.GonzalesJ. E.KhairallaA. (2024). When pleas precede evidence: Using Bayesian analyses to establish the importance of a reasonable standard for evidence prior to plea offers. The Wrongful Conviction Law Review, 5(1), 126–145. https://doi.org/10.29173/wclawr114
54.
WilfordM. M.SutherlandK. T.GonzalesJ. E.RabinovichM. (2021). Guilt status influences plea outcomes beyond the shadow-of-the-trial in an interactive simulation of legal procedures. Law and Human Behavior, 45(4), 271–286. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000450
55.
YangY.GuyllM.MadonS. (2017). The interrogation decision-making model: A general theoretical framework for confessions. Law and Human Behavior, 41(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000220
56.
ZottoliT. M.Daftary-KapurT.EdkinsV. A.RedlichA. D.KingC. M.DervanL. E.TahanE. (2019). State of the states: A survey of statutory law, regulations and court rules pertaining to guilty pleas across the United States. Behavioral Science and the Law, 37(4), 388–434. https://doi.org/10.1002/bsl.2413
57.
ZottoliT. M.HelmR. K.EdkinsV. A.BixterM. T. (2023). Developing a model of plea decision-making: Fuzzy-trace theory, gist, and categorical boundaries. Law and Human Behavior, 47(3), 403–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000532
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
