Courts Study Commissioned by Denver District Attorney Finds Disparate Prosecutorial Outcomes Black and Latinx defendants in the city and county of Denver face significant disadvantages compared to white defendants, the Denver Post reports based on a study commissioned by Denver District Attorney Beth McCann. Conducted by sociologist Stacey Bosick with funding from the University of Denver’s Colorado Evaluation and Action Lab, the study examined administrative data and case files for nearly 6,000 felony cases between 2017 and 2018. The analysis revealed that prosecutors were more likely to have deferred prosecution of white defendants or to have sent them to drug court compared to Black defendants. Additionally, prosecutors were 31% more likely to dismiss the cases of Black defendants compared to white defendants after controlling for factors including case severity and age, suggesting that Black defendants were more likely to face charges that lacked evidence. The study found no racial disparities in plea agreements. Bosick also interviewed 20 prosecutors, who stated common concerns regarding the overrepresentation of people of color in the criminal legal system but felt limited in their ability to address the disparities. The study’s recommendations for the office include evaluating the rationale and timing of case dismissals and using an equity lens to evaluate eligibility criteria for drug court and sentencing alternatives, such as regarding criminal history and employment status. How Inequality Harms Attorney-Client Relationships and Case Outcomes In Privilege and Punishment: How Race and Class Matter in Criminal Court, Stanford University professor Matthew Clair examines how racial and class inequality impacted 63 individuals who were processed in criminal courts in the Boston area between 2015 and 2019. While past research in schools, hospitals, and workplaces led him to expect that privileged people would be assertive in demanding accommodations whereas economically disadvantaged people would be more deferential, his observations and interviews revealed the opposite in the courts. Low-income individuals, especially people of color, “sought to know their legal rights, contest their defense lawyers’ expertise, and advocate for themselves in court,” while middle-class people deferred to their trusted, often privately-hired, lawyers. These interactional differences compounded disadvantage, as defense attorneys and judges ignored, silenced, or coerced individuals who were non-compliant out of resistance or resignation. “Privileged people were rewarded for their deference whereas the disadvantaged were punished for their resistance and demands for justice,” Clair explains, elaborating on an article in the journal Social Forces. He offers a wide range of recommendations, including encouraging defense attorneys to secure clients’ trust through client-centered representation, giving indigent individuals a choice of defense attorneys and more opportunities to voice their concerns, developing systems of outside accountability and monitoring for courts, and shifting the handling of many social problems—including drug use, mental illness, consenting sex work and homelessness—away from criminal courts and shifting other crimes towards a restorative justice model. |