Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

• Author: Alisa Smith,Sean Maddan
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420901759
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403420901759

Criminal Justice Policy Review

2020, Vol. 31(9) 1312 –1339

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0887403420901759

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjp

Article

Misdemeanor Courts, Due

Process, and Case Outcomes

Alisa Smith1 and Sean Maddan2

Abstract

Very little research on courts and sentencing outcomes focuses on misdemeanor

courts despite the fact that most crime processed through the criminal justice system

is misdemeanor in nature. In fact, the overwhelming empiricism in this area is on felony

court outcomes at either the federal or state levels. This research utilized a mixed

methodology approach, a combination of observation, survey, and secondary data, to

explore misdemeanor court outcomes across the State of Florida. In particular, this

research focused on the extent of due process afforded misdemeanor defendants and

how this impacted case outcomes. Findings indicate an overall lack of due process

and awareness of due process rights across the vast majority of cases. This study also

explored sentencing outcomes via traditional metrics associated with contemporary

sentencing research. Findings suggest that misdemeanor courts processing operate

much differently than felony courts. The implications for future research and policy

are discussed.

Keywords

misdemeanor courts, due process, misdemeanor crimes

Introduction

The lower courts have been referred to as a paradox: The lowers courts are largely

ignored by both lawyers and scholars, but they are the primary judicial experience for

most people who enter the criminal justice system (Silbey, 1981). Most citizens (and

noncitizens) who interact with the judiciary do so in the lower courts. These citizens

see a fundamentally different courtroom than they see on television and in movies.

1University of Central Florida, Orlando, USA

2Texas A&M International University, Laredo, USA

Corresponding Author:

Sean Maddan, Associate Professor, Chair, Department of Social Sciences, Texas A&M International

University, 5201 University Boulevard, Laredo, TX 78041, USA.

Email: sean.maddan@tamiu.edu

901759CJPXXX10.1177/0887403420901759Criminal Justice Policy ReviewSmith and Maddan

research-article2020

Smith and Maddan 1313

Justice to citizens charged with misdemeanors is very different from the version of

justice depicted across the mass media. It has the appearance of being both chaotic and

unfair. This inherent contradiction of the lower courts is even more pervasive follow-

ing years of “broken windows” and “quality-of-life” policing. Lower courts process

many cases every day. Despite this fact, the lower courts have operated in near secrecy

due to the lack of emphasis by all relevant stakeholders. Recently, the media, civil

rights groups, and scholars have begun to highlight the multitude of challenges inher-

ent in the lower courts.

While there is a newfound emphasis on the lower courts, government at all levels

has largely failed to collect data on misdemeanor crimes; instead, the focus is on data

collection for the most serious crimes: homicide, robbery, sexual assault, and serious

property crimes. Even when data are collected by the government (e.g., U.S. Sentencing

Commission data), it is generally lacking full detail on misdemeanor processing (due

process and decision/plea bargaining), which is largely absent in Bureau of Justice

Statistics datasets. Without easy access to “big data,” scholars have eschewed the

lower courts for courts that focus on felony indictments. In spite of the work of

Malcolm Feeley in the 1970s and the interest it garnered through the early 1990s, the

study of misdemeanor courts has been relatively dormant. Legal scholars and non-

profit organizations in the early 2000s reignited interest in studying the misdemeanor

courts following the widespread adoption of quality-of-life policing strategies, which

necessarily increased misdemeanor arrests (Geller, 2016; Wilson & Kelling, 1982).

More recently, empirical efforts in the area of the misdemeanor courts have begun to

parallel the work from the felony courts, with an overall emphasis on disparities across

race and gender. Bach’s (2009) qualitative work, discussing a series of case studies,

revealed remarkable, yet secreted, stories of injustice throughout the misdemeanor

courts. The need for more empirical research (especially peer-reviewed research) on

the lower courts was, and continues to be, great.

While parallels in research efforts across felony and misdemeanor courts are impor-

tant, it is important to remember that misdemeanor crimes and how they are processed

through the criminal justice system are qualitatively different, even if arrests are com-

pleted by the same police and the courts are run by the same judges. There are many

different lines of research that necessarily can be developed in the misdemeanor courts

that would be irrelevant in felony courts. In the earliest work by the National

Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL, 2009), Minor Crimes, Massive

Waste, researchers summarized findings from existing studies and anecdotes from

misdemeanor court observers across seven states. This study and further research by

Bach (2009) illustrated procedural and due process lapses in the misdemeanor courts

in Georgia, Illinois, Mississippi, and New York. After Minor Crimes, Massive Waste,

NACDL, the Center for Court Innovation and the Sixth Amendment Center began

systematically gathering empirical data to quantitatively demonstrate the weaknesses

in the right to counsel, due process, and procedural justice in the misdemeanor courts.

In Three-Minute Justice, Smith and Maddan (2011) found that misdemeanants, who

have the right to counsel and due process of law, were either not receiving these rights

or that these rights were being severely blunted in Florida’s lower criminal courts,