Documents
Misdemeanor defendants frequently resolve their cases without counsel, pleading guilty or accepting a plea bargain without requesting public defense representation, and this interview-based study takes an unusual approach: asking defendants directly what influenced their decision. In brief interviews immediately following arraignment hearings and extended interviews over the course of six months, we investigated the complex motivations that influence defendants’ decision-making process in court. At first glance, it seems that defendants make the fairly simplistic cost-benefit analysis that resolving at arraignment is easier than returning to court with counsel for a trial, even if it means accepting a sentence for unwanted charges. However, our in-depth interviews revealed that the defendants’ cost-benefit analysis is multifaceted, with court-induced pressure to make a quick decision that is ill-informed. Instead of receiving their constitutionally-protected right to counsel, misdemeanor defendants rely on their personal and vicarious experiences with law enforcement officers, felony courts, and prior disappointments with legal assistance when they are standing before the judge. Defendants are motivated to resolve without counsel because of their anxiety about court, distrust of public defenders, and misconceptions about the proceedings. Our recommendations for improvements to the misdemeanor courts attempt to address the various issues brought to light by our longitudinal interviews with misdemeanor defendants.
This report is part of a series on misdemeanor waviers of counsel. To read more reports from this series, please visit the page linked below.
