The study focused on the influence of forensic evidence on the case processing of assault and robbery incidents. The study utilized a prospective analysis of official record data that followed cases in five jurisdictions from the time of police incident report to final criminal disposition. The results indicated that forensic evidence was collected in less than a third of all robbery and assault cases. Forensic evidence did not impact case outcomes for either robbery or assault cases. Cases in which there is physical evidence are no more likely to reach conviction than those without such evidence. However, the availability of victim and/or witness accounts were found to predict movement through various stages of the criminal case process. Thus, locating and encouraging victims and witnesses to provide testimony appears to enhance case solvability. In addition, variables associated with the perceived seriousness of the offense impact case progression.
AlbonettiC. (1987). Prosecutorial discretion: The effects of uncertainty. Law and Society Review, 21, 291-313.
2.
AlbonettiC. (1989). Bail and judicial discretion in the District of Columbia. Sociology and Social Research, 74, 40-47.
3.
AlbonettiC. (1997). Sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law & Society Review31, 789-822.
BaskinD.SommersI. (2010). Crime show viewing habits and public attitudes toward forensic evidence: The “CSI Effect” revisited. Justice System Journal, 31, 97-113.
6.
BerkR. (1983). An introduction to sample selection bias in sociological data. American Sociological Review, 48, 386-398.
7.
BernsteinI.KellyW.DoyleP. (1977). Societal reaction to deviants: The case of criminal defendants. American Sociological Review, 42, 743-755.
8.
BishopD.FrazierC. (1984). The effect of gender on charge reduction. Sociological Quarterly, 25, 358-396.
9.
BoylanR. (2005). What do prosecutors maximize? Evidence from the careers of U.S. attorneys. American Law and Economics Review, 7, 379-402.
10.
BridgesG.CrutchfieldR. (1988). Law, social standing and racial disparities in imprisonment. Social Forces, 66, 699-724.
11.
BriodyM. (2004). The effects of DNA evidence on homicide cases in court. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 37, 231-253.
12.
BushwayS.PiehlA. (2001). Judging judicial discretion: Legal factors and racial discrimination in sentencing. Law and Society Review, 35, 733-764.
13.
ChampionD. (1987). Elderly felons and sentencing severity: Intergenerational variations in leniency and sentencing trends. Criminal Justice Review, 12, 7-14.
14.
ClarkeS.KurtzS. (1983). The importance of interim decisions to felony trial court dispositions. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 74, 476-518.
15.
CurryT.LeeG.RodriguezS. (2004). Does victim gender increase sentence severity? Further examination of gender dynamics and sentencing outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 50, 319-343.
16.
D’AlessioS.StolzenbergL. (2003). Race and the probability of arrest. Social Forces, 81, 1381-1397.
17.
DemuthS. (2003). Racial and ethnic differences in pretrial release decisions and outcomes: A comparison of Hispanic, Black, and White felony arrestees. Criminology, 41, 873-907.
18.
DemuthS.SteffensmeierD. (2004). Ethnicity effects on sentence outcomes in felony cases: Comparisons among White, Black, and Hispanic defendants. Social Science Quarterly, 85, 994-1011.
19.
EisensteinJ.JacobH. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston, MA: Brown-Little.
20.
EitleD.StolzenbergL.D’AlessioS. J. (2005). Police organizational factors, the racial composition of the police, and the probability of arrest. Justice Quarterly, 22, 30-57.
21.
FarnsworthM.TeskeR. (1995). Gender differences in felony court processing: Three hypotheses of disparity. Women and Criminal Justice, 62, 23-44.
22.
FeeleyM. (1979). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in the lower criminal court. New York, NY: Sage.
23.
FeeneyF. (1983). Arrests without conviction: How often they occur and why. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
24.
FeimerS.PommersheinF.WiseS. (1990). Marking time: Does race make a difference? A study of disparate sentencing in South Dakota. Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 86-102.
25.
ForstB.LucianovicJ.CoxS. (1977). What happens after arrest?Washington, DC: Institute for Law and Social Research.
26.
GeberthV. J. (1996). Practical homicide investigation: Tactics, procedures, and forensic techniques (3rd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
27.
GibsonJ. (1978). Race as a determinant of criminal sentences: A methodological critique and case study. Law and Society Review, 12, 455-478.
28.
Gray-EuromK.SeabergD. C.WearsR. L. (2002). The prosecution of sexual assaults cases: Correlation with forensic evidence. Annals of Emergency Medicine, 39, 39-46.
29.
GreenwoodP.ChaikenJ.PetersiliaJ.PrusoffL. (1975). The criminal investigation process, Volume III: Observations and analysis. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
30.
HaganJ.BumillerK. (1983). Making sense of sentencing: A review and critique of sentencing research. In BlumsteinA.. (Eds.), Research on sentencing: The search for reform (pp. 1-54). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
31.
HeckmanJ. (1979). Sample selection bias as a specification error. Econometrica, 47, 153-161.
32.
HeumannM. (1977). Plea bargaining: The experiences of prosecutors, judges and defense attorneys. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
HolmesM.HorschH.DaudistelH.PerezD.GravesJ. (1996). Ethnicity, legal resources, and felony dispositions in two Southwestern jurisdictions. Justice Quarterly, 13, 11-30.
KatzC.SpohnC. (1995). The effect of race and gender on bail outcomes: A test of an interactive model. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 161-184.
36.
KeelT.JarvisJ.MuirheadY. (2009). An exploratory analysis of factors affecting homicide investigations: Examining the dynamics of murder clearance rates. Homicide Studies, 13, 50-68.
37.
Kempf-LeonardK.SampleL. (2001). Have federal sentencing guidelines reduced severity? An examination of one circuit. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 17, 111-144.
38.
KleinS.PetersiliaJ.TurnerS. (1990). Race and imprisonment decisions in California. Science, 247, 812-816.
39.
LassersW. (1968). Proof of guilt in capital cases—An unscience. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology and Police Science, 58, 310.
40.
LeeC. (2005). The value of life in death: Multiple regression and event history analyses of homicide clearance in Los Angeles County. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 527-534.
41.
LizotteA. (1978). Extralegal factors in Chicago’s criminal courts: Testing the conflict model of criminal justice. Social Problems, 25, 564-580.
42.
MarchéG. E. (1994). The production of homicide solutions: An empirical analysis. American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 53, 385-401.
43.
Maricopa County Attorneys Office. (2005). The CSI effect and its real-life impact on justice. Maricopa County, AZ: Author.
44.
MitchellO.MacKenzieD. (2004). The relationship between race, ethnicity, and sentencing outcomes: A meta-analysis of sentencing research. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
45.
MurphyE. (2007). The new forensics: Criminal justice, false certainty, and the second generation of scientific evidence. California Law Review, 95, 721-797.
46.
MyersM.HaganJ. (1979). Private and public trouble: Prosecutors and the allocation of court resources. Social Problems, 26, 439-451.
47.
National Academy of Sciences. (2009). Strengthening forensic science in the United States: A path forward. Washington, DC: Committee on Identifying the Needs of the Forensic Sciences Community; Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics, National Research Council.
48.
NeufeldP. (2005). The (near) irrelevance of Daubert to criminal justice and some suggestions for reform. American Journal of Public Health, 95, S107-S113.
49.
ParkerB.PetersonJ. (1972). Physical evidence utilization in the administration of criminal justice. LEAA Grant NI-032. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
50.
PattersonE.LynchM. (1991) Bias in formalized bail procedures. In LynchM.PattersonE. (Eds.), Race and criminal justice (pp.36-53). Albany, NY: Harrow and Heston.
51.
PetersonJ.RyanJ.HoldenP.MihajlovicS. (1987). The uses and effects of forensic science in the adjudication of felony cases. Journal of Forensic Sciences, 32, 1730-1753.
52.
PetersonJ.SommersI.BaskinD.JohnsonD. (2010). The role and impact of forensic evidence in the criminal justice process (Final Report, No. 2006-DN-BX-0094). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
53.
PodlasK. (2006). The CSI effect: Exposing the media myth. Fordham Intellectual Property Media & Entertainment Law Journal, 16, 429-465.
54.
ReissA.Jr. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
55.
RiedelM.JarvisJ. (1999). The decline of arrest clearances for criminal homicide: Causes, correlates, and third parties. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 9, 279-306.
56.
RiedelM.RinehartT. A. (1996). Murder clearances and missing data. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 83-102.
57.
RobertsA. (2007). Predictors of homicide clearance by arrest: An event history analysis of NIBRS incidents. Homicide Studies, 11, 82-93.
58.
RobertsA. (2008). The influences of incident and contextual characteristics on crime clearance of nonlethal violence: A multilevel event history analysis. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 61-71.
59.
RosettA.CresseyD. (1976). Justice by consent: Plea bargains in the American courthouse. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
60.
SheltonD.KimY.BarakG. (2006). A study of juror expectations and demands concerning scientific evidence: Does the CSI Effect exist?Vanderbilt Journal of Entertainment and Technology Law, 9, 331-363.
61.
SimonL. M. (1996). Legal treatment of the victim-offender relationship in crimes of violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 94-106.
62.
SnyderH. (1999). Juvenile arrests 1998. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
63.
SpohnC.HolleranD. (2001). Prosecuting sexual assault: A comparison of charging decisions in sexual assault cases involving strangers, acquaintances, and intimate partners. Justice Quarterly, 18, 651-688.
64.
SteffensmeierD.KramerH.UlmerJ. (1995). Age differences in sentencing. Justice Quarterly, 12, 583-602.
65.
StolzenbergL.D’AlessioS. (2004). Sex differences in the likelihood of arrest. Journal of Criminal Justice, 32, 443-454.
WellfordC.CroninJ. (2000, April). Clearing up homicide clearance rates. National Institute of Justice Journal, 1-7.
72.
WheelerS.WeisburdD.BodeN. (1982). Sentencing the white-collar offender: rhetoric and reality. American Sociological Review, 47, 641-659.
73.
WilbanksW. (1987). The myth of a racist criminal justice system. Monterey, CA: Brooks Cole.
74.
WooldredgeJ.ThistlewaiteA. (2004). Bilevel disparities in court dispositions for intimate assault. Criminology, 42, 417-456.
75.
ZatzM. (2000). The convergence of race, ethnicity, gender, and class on court decision-making: Looking at the 21st century. In National Institute of Justice (Ed.), Criminal justice 2000 (pp. 503-552). Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
