Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-6
The Role of Private Legal Representation and the Implicit Effect of Defendants’ Demographic Characteristics in Setting Bail and Obtaining Pretrial Release
Misdemeanor bail schedules use the seriousness of the alleged crime and the defendant’s criminal history. Court officials contend the schedules ensure that only legal factors are considered for bail. Using longitudinal data from randomly selected misdemeanor cases filed during the first quarter of 2012 in Harris County, Texas we use ordinary least squares (OLS) to test the influence of demographic characteristics of defendants and their ability to retain private representation on the process of setting the monetary amount for bail. We find evidence of implicit bias and a distinct advantage of private representation. Using logit analysis, we estimate how demographic factors and monetary bail influence the probability of pretrial release, and present point estimates of making bail by demographic type. Demographics matter but retaining private counsel increases the probability of bail by sevenfold. Policy recommendations include expanding the use of public defenders and allowing them access to clients much earlier in the process.
AyresI.WaldfogelJ. (1994). A market test for race discrimination in bail setting. Stanford Law Review, 46, 987-1047.
2.
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.
3.
DemuthS.SteffensmeierD. (2004). The impact of gender and race-ethnicity in the pretrial release process. Social Problems, 51, 222-242.
4.
FreeM. (2004). Bail and pretrial release decisions: An assessment of racial threat perspective. Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice, 2(4), 23-44.
5.
FreiburgerT. L.HilinskiC. M. (2010). The impact of race, gender, and age on the pretrial decision. Criminal Justice Review, 35, 318-334.
6.
FreiburgerT. L.MarcumC. D.PierceM. (2010). The impact of race on the pretrial decision. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 35, 76-86. doi:10.1007/s12103-009-9069-z.
7.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.
8.
GreenwaldA. G.KriegerL. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94, 945-968.
9.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
10.
HahnA.JuddC. M.HirshH. K.BlairI. V. (2014). Awareness of implicit attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1369-1392.
HeatonP. S.MaysonS. G.StevensonM. (2016). The downstream consequences of misdemeanor pretrial detention. Stanford Law Review, 69, 711-794.
13.
HofmannW.GawronskiB.GschwendnerT.LeH.SchmittM. (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385.
14.
JollsC.SunsteinC. R. (2006). The law of implicit bias. California Law Review, 94, 945-996.
15.
JonesC. (2014). Confronting race in the criminal justice system. Criminal Justice, 27, 12-17.
16.
KatzM.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.
LevinsonJ. D.YoungD. M.RudmanL. A. (2012). Implicit racial bias: A social science overview. In LevinsonJ. D.SmithR. J. (Eds.), Implicit racial bias across the law (pp. 9-24). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
19.
MaxwellS. R.DavisJ. S. (1999). The salience of race and gender in pretrial release decisions: A comparison across multiple jurisdictions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 10, 491-502.
20.
Odonnell v. Harris County. (2016). United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas Houston Division (Case No. 4:16-cv-1414).
21.
OgletreeC.SmithR. J.WaldJ. (2012). Criminal law—Coloring punishment: Implicit social cognition and criminal justice. In LevinsonJ. D.SmithR. J. (Eds.), Implicit racial bias across the law (pp. 45-60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
22.
PindyckR. S.RubinfeldD. L. (1981). Econometric models and economic forecasts (2nd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
23.
RabuyB.KopfD. (2016). Detaining the poor. Northampton, MA: Prison Policy Initiative. Retrieved from Available from http://prisonpolicy.org
24.
SacksM.AckermanA. R. (2012). Pretrial detention and guilty pleas: If they can’t afford bail they must be guilty. Criminal Justice Studies, 25, 265-278.
25.
SacksM.AckermanA. R. (2014). Bail and sentencing: Does pretrial detention lead to harsher punishment?Criminal Justice Policy Review, 25, 59-77.
26.
SchlesingerT. (2005). Racial and ethnic disparity in pretrial criminal processing. Justice Quarterly, 22, 170-192.
SmithR. J.LevinsonJ. D. (2012). The impact of implicit racial bias on the exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Seattle University Law Review, 35, 795-826.
29.
TonryM. (2010). The social, psychological and political causes of racial disparities in the American criminal justice system. Crime & Justice, 39, 273-312.
30.
TurnerK. B.JohnsonJ. B. (2007). The relationship between type of attorney and bail amount set for Hispanic defendants. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 29, 384-400.
31.
WilliamsM. (2017). The effect of attorney type on bail decisions. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 28, 3-17. doi:10.1177/0887403414562603.
32.
WooldredgeJ.FrankJ.GouletteJ.TravisL.III. (2015). Is the impact of cumulative on sentencing greater for Black defendants?Criminology and Public Policy, 14, 187-223.
