Two categories of existing empirical research, the microeconomic and organizational model of case processing, are discussed. The model's adequacy is assessed through multivariate analysis of case file and organizational data from five jurisdictions. It is concluded that the organizational model is a better descriptor of case processing, but that formidable conceptual and methodological obstacles limit both. Case data are not adequate to construct structural variables to relate to individual case and defendant variables. Furthermore, the organizational model cannot show a clear picture of consensus among participants in the case. The author attempted to break through these limitations by defining the organizational model through the use of a contingency theory of case processing. It focuses on the uncertainty confronting case processors in their disposition and sentencing decisions. The concept of 'normal crimes' was used to enhance the consistency and predictability of case processing. It is concluded that if normal crimes are in fact crucial to understanding case processing, then conventional methodologies are inadequate and must be augmented by alternative strategies such as case vignettes, comparative observational research, and aggregate data comparisons at the jurisdictional level.