Much of the research on trial courts has erred in its assumption of consensus and stability among the legal actors, while failing to consider scenarios where legal actors are not attached to evident norms or programmed to do what is expected. Some work has addressed these latter issues, and it shows a complex interaction of actors, who are continuously trying to reconcile diverse and often competing versions of reality. Still, while such researchers as Mather (1979) and Heumann (1977) suggest a world which is more conflictual than that assumed by other researchers, they do not adequately address the parameters within which actors constrict their modus operandi. Thus far, research has not explained why certain classes of defendants are treated as they are or why particular laws are upheld at some times more than others. To understand these processes, researchers must move away from a narrow focus on court dynamics and the institutions immediately surrounding courts to an examination of the material forces which surround and impinge upon them. An overarching influence upon the court's work is the court's repressive role and also the need for it to appear legitimate if the state's mandate is to go unchallenged. Further, faced with declining resources and with increased demand for court services, the court must change to become more cost-effective. These influences upon the courts may influence them to change apart from the immediate interests of legal actors. Thirty-one references are listed.