A SUMMARY OF THE RESEARCH PROCEDURES UTILIZED IN THE PROJECT IS FIRST PRESENTED. THE PROJECT USED MAIL QUESTIONNAIRES, FIELD VISITS, AND COURT DOCKET STUDIES IN EIGHT LOCALITIES IN CALIFORNIA, KENTUCKY, MARYLAND, OHIO, NEVADA, NEW YORK, AND PENNSYLVANIA. NEXT, THE CHARACTERISTICS OF VARIOUS PUBLIC DEFENDER AGENCIES AND THEIR SCOPE OF SERVICE ARE EXAMINED AND COMPARED, AND DEFENDER SYSTEM CLASSIFICATIONS ARE DETAILED. DEFENDER AGENCY CHARACTERISTICS DISCUSSED IN THE EVALUATION INCLUDE: FULL- AND PART-TIME AGENCY STATUS, POPULATION UNIVERSE SERVED BY AGENCIES, ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE, METHOD OF SELECTION OF CHIEF DEFENDER, GEOGRAPHICAL AREA SERVED, THE CLASSIFICATION OF LITIGATION IN WHICH DEFENDER AGENCIES PARTICIPATE, CASELOAD PROPORTIONS, STAGES OF REPRESENTATION, METHOD OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT ASSIGNMENT, SUPPORT STAFF AVAILABILITY, NONFEE ELIGIBILITY, CASE DEFINITION CRITERIA, OFFICE CASELOADS, DEFENDER SYSTEM BUDGETS, AND ATTORNEY PREPARATION TIME. DEFENDER CASE ENTRY IS EXAMINED, AND IT IS NOTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE REPRESENTATION OF INDIGENT CRIMINAL DEFENDANTS BEGINS AT VARIOUS STAGES IN THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ACCUSED, FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ANALYSIS THE UNDERTAKING OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION IS CATEGORIZED AS EITHER EARLY OR LATE ENTRY. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT EARLY ENTRY IS NECESSARY FOR EFFECTIVE REPRESENTATION, AND THE SURVEY RESULTS ARE EXAMINED WITHIN THIS FRAMEWORK. HOW DEFENDERS AND CLIENTS MEET AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TIMING OF FIRST CONTACT AND THE ORGANIZATION OF INDIVIDUAL DEFENDER AGENCIES ARE DISCUSSED. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GUILTY PLEA RATES AND DEFENDER AGENCY CHARACTERISTICS IS DISCUSSED. THE GUILTY PLEA AND THE DEFENDER AGENCY PROCESS IS EXAMINED, AS ARE THE IMPACT OF CASELOADS, ATTORNEY PREPARATION TIME, AND SUPPORT STAFF. A SAMPLE OF DEFENDER-NEGOTIATED PLEA DISPOSITIONS IS DISCUSSED REGARDING THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE, THE POINT OF FIRST CONTACT, THE STAGE IN THE PROCEEDINGS WHEN NEGOTIATIONS TAKE PLACE, THE INFLUENCES TO NEGOTIATE, AND THE TYPICAL NEGOTIATED GUILTY PLEA. NEXT, ACTUAL CASE DISPOSITIONS INVOLVING GUILTY PLEAS ARE EXAMINED. A DESCRIPTION OF THE DOCKET STUDY IS PROVIDED, AND A COMPARATIVE EXAMINATION OF THE EFFECT ON PLEAS AND SENTENCING OF ASSIGNED PRIVATE COUNSEL AND PUBLIC DEFENDERS IS UNDERTAKEN. A DEFENDER CASE PORTRAIT IS PRESENTED; A CASE IS TRACED FROM THE ORIGINAL CHARGE THROUGH JUDGMENTS AND SENTENCING, WITH ATTENTION TO THE LAPSE OF TIME BETWEEN ARREST AND FIRST COURT APPEARANCE, METHOD OF DISPOSITION, AND THE AMOUNT OF TIME IN THE SYSTEM. FINALLY, CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PUBLIC DEFENDER GUILTY PLEA DISPOSITION ARE DETAILED, INCLUDING THE TYPES OF CASES BEING PLEADED OUT, JAIL TIME FOR GUILTY PLEA DISPOSITIONS, ALTERED CHARGES IN PLEADED CASES. SENTENCING IN GUILTY PLEA DISPOSITIONS, AND PRETRIAL STATUS AND SENTENCING. GRAPHIC AND TABULAR PRESENTATIONS ARE USED. (KBL)