U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government, Department of Justice.

NCJRS Virtual Library

The Virtual Library houses over 235,000 criminal justice resources, including all known OJP works.
Click here to search the NCJRS Virtual Library

Analysis of a Method for Reducing Pretrial Delay in Court Systems

NCJ Number
75280
Author(s)
B V Dean; J N Barrer
Date Published
1975
Length
43 pages
Annotation
An analysis was performed to measure the effect on court processing times produced by a project that formalized the plea bargaining procedure through the cooperation of prosecuting and defense attorneys in three demonstration cities.
Abstract
The project was intended to reduce the average length of time between arrest and indictment and to reduce the felony dockets of trial courts by 25 percent through early disposition in New Haven, Connecticut; Norfolk, Virginia; and Salt Lake City, Utah. In each city, the plea bargaining session was conducted as soon as possible after the defendant was arrested. For this analysis, two sets of data were collected for the cities. One set of data concerned cases which were initiated in 1974 while the plea bargaining procedures were in effect, and the other was collected for the year prior to the changes introduced through the project. For comparison purposes, the most important data collected for each case proved to be the type of charge, dates of arrest and disposition, and the type and manner of disposition. Demographic variables were available for only two cities. Although the project's effects on the sizes of the dockets could not be determined, the analysis revealed that the average processing time in New Haven was reduced by 45 percent. This city's mean processing time declined from 91 to 51 days, and the proportion of cases resolved within 30 days was increased from 17 to 50 percent. No evidence was found to suggest that the processing times were reduced in the other two cities. Although the data could not be used to explain the differences, the individuals involved in each court system and the difficulties encountered when attempting the changes may have affected the results. Flow charts, formulas, and data tables are included. (Related document -- see NCJRS 75279.)