Theory guidance

Hall 1987 structural conditions

lack of personnel, facilities, docket clogging
legal roadblocks, features

Hagan 1988 organizational conditions

loose coupling s tight coupling
Loose coupling=independent autonomous subsystems
Packer 1964 cultural narratives
Crime control v due process
Crime controls = emphasis on speed and finality assembly line
Due process = emphasis on quality and legitimacy obstacle course
Narratives to justify behavior
Eisenstein et al 1999 cultural conditions
Give and take
Professional courtesy

↗JUSTIFIES ORGANIZATIONAL PROCESS →CASE DELAY

inadvertent
STRUCTURAL ↑
CONDITION ↓

↘JUSTIFIES THE CULTURE →CASE DELAY

DATA AND METHODS

Measuring prolonged trial

length of stay – Cut off Date: date committed in the jail
Not included: time in police station, time after cut-off date
SAMPLE SIZE = 8915 inmates
Median = 268 days (9 months) average sentence
MAXIMUM = 5496 (15y, 17d)

Individual level variations

Delayed inmate
If you don’t know your way into the system, who to approach, where t go , you will stay
longer in jail. You need to inform the jail officers to bring you clurt when you have a hearing. There must
be someone who will call your lawyer remind your witness without those your will heaing will be
postponed (delayed inmate 5, 8 years, jail 5
Loose coupling

If you are charged with drugs, then you have no bail. Then you will rot longer. It is hard
to convince the judge that they plated evidence against you. But then, you are acquitted. Eventually,
they will let you suffer first then let you out. That is the name of tha game. Inmade 4, 4years jail 4
due process
Court level variations
exercises of speedy courts
I have my own list of detainess and their hearings. So days b4 the hearings, our court
staff txt to all the parties, reminding them to hearings. I penalize them if they don’t show up.

You should not let bailable offenses clog the jails. Those inmates should have beed
released if they have money. If they stay in jail more than 6 months, they should be released

Challenged courts
We don’t have a list of detainess. We don’t know how long they have been in jail. We
are not concerned because we are prosecutors. That’s the work of the PAO. We rely on the courts data.
It would be nice if we have our own database so we can monitor developments (loose coupling)

You cannot just dismiss a non bailable offense. It is a process, we need to decide based
on evidence. (Due process)

PRISON CALENDAR
5 YEARS 5 MONTHS 9 DAYS
11 HEARINGS
1ST HEARING ARRAIGNMENT
2ND pc
3RD PRE TRIAL
4-11 POSTPONED

AT RISK OF DELAY
RTC 3 YEARS AT RISK
MTC 6 MONTHS AT RISK

Speedy Jail
The relationship with the executive judge is good, we provide them with the information of at
risk inamtes

Challenged jails
The judges in this city are hard to approach. They look at jail guards as inmates. They are
intimidating. They don’t pay attention to out requests. We had been requesting a meeting with them.

SPEEDY COURT SYSTEM

Regular monthly meeting where we monitor cases. We inform the judges concerned if their
cases are sleeping. We sometimes are reproached but are eventually persuaded.

Challenged court system

The judges are independent. They consider their courts as their own fiefdom. You cannot barge
in and say that they need to work fast.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

Tightly coupled
Coordination among judges, prosec, lawyers and popos
Sharing of data bn jail and the court actors
Exec judges supervision over the trial court judges

Loosely coupled
Leniency
Non-accountability
Passing the buck/responsibility

Crime control narratives

Emphasis on efficiency
Dispose the case as quickly as possible

Due process narratives

Excuse to delay
Use as leverage

Court working group

Leniency
Give and take

LAWYERING IS MAKING THE LAW POWERFUL FOR THE POWERLESS – RAYMUND NARAG