Conventional wisdom explains the justice process in terms of the different functions of the chief actors. This conventional wisdom, however, is challenged by a counter argument, based in a general theory of public organizations, that the chief participants in the court process behave in accordance with their immediate work environment rather than systemic policy goals and objectives. Information for this study was drawn from a larger comparative examination of the criminal appeals process. The larger study examined the procedures, case processing time and underlying caseload, jurisdiction, and organization associated with three approaches to handling criminal appeals: case management, decision without oral argument, and fast-tracking. This research indicates the variation in chief actors' attitudes toward these approaches is minimal, suggesting that the organizing concept of the courtroom work group has validity in the appellate setting. Policy implications are drawn from these findings. 26 footnotes.