The Processing of Homicides in the Courts: An Examination of Multiple Case Outcomes

• DOI: 10.1177/2153368718759401
• Date: 01 October 2020
• Published date: 01 October 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article
Race and Justice
2020, Vol. 10(4) 400-423
The Processing of Homicides
ª The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
in the Courts: An Examination
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/2153368718759401
of Multiple Case Outcomes
journals.sagepub.com/home/raj
Jesenia M. Pizarro1, Kristen M. Zgoba2,
Laura M. Salerno3, and Giovanni Circo4
Abstract
The current study employs focal concerns theory to address the role that race/
ethnicity plays on various court dispositions of homicide offenders in Newark, NJ, a
location where the majority of residents are African American and Latino. Two
research questions are examined: (1) Does ethnicity play an important role in the
decision to dismiss a case against a homicide offender, convict via a plea deal, convict
via trial, acquit via trial, and sentence length? and (2) Which legal and extralegal
factors play a role in these decision points during the processing of homicide
offenders? The findings suggest that when there is little ethnic variation of defen-
dants, victims, and the citizenry, other extralegal variables take precedence in
informing the focal concerns of court actors. The results also suggest that different
legal and extralegal variables affect the odds of distinct court outcomes. Implications
for theory and future research are discussed.
Keywords
plea-bargaining, race and courts, pretrial process, race and sentencing, homicides,
victimization, focal concerns
1 School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA
2 Department of Criminal Justice, College of Health and Public Affairs, University of Central Florida,
Orlando, FL, USA
3 Research and Evaluation Unit, New Jersey Department of Corrections, Trenton, NJ, USA
4 School of Criminal Justice, University of New Haven, New Haven CT, USA
Corresponding Author:
Jesenia M. Pizarro, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411 N. Central
Avenue, Suite 600, Mail Code 4420, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.
Email: jesenia.pizarro@asu.edu

---

Pizarro et al.
401
Studies of criminal case processing in the U.S. court system have identified
numerous actors, decision points, legal, and extralegal variables that interact to
produce court outcomes (Albonetti, 1991; Anderson & Spohn, 2010; Baumer,
Messner, & Felson, 2000). One framework often utilized to explain these outcomes
is the focal concerns perspective (Steffensmeier, Ulmer, & Kramer, 1998). Research
that has employed this perspective have repeatedly found that African Americans
and Latinos are more likely to receive negative court outcomes and harsher sen-
tencing when compared to other ethnic groups (Kutateladze, Andiloro, Johnson, &
Spohn, 2014). Despite the breadth of literature surrounding the focal concerns
perspective as it relates to adjudication and sentencing outcomes, there are questions
that warrant further exploration.
To date, the bulk of research has examined data from sentencing commissions
and the most populated counties and cities in the United States. Little is known about
the sentencing of offenders in midsized cities, particularly those with high violent
crime rates, where the bulk of the residents are ethnic minorities. Ulmer’s (2012)
review of the sentencing literature suggests that the social characteristics of the court
location where the sentencing decision is reached affect the court outcome. He
writes that “substantial evidence exists that what kind of sentence one gets, and the
factors that predict why one gets it, in significant part depends on where one is
sentenced” (p. 14). Given this finding, it is important to examine which extralegal
factors are important in explaining case outcomes in jurisdictions that lack racial and
ethnic heterogeneity.
The current study addresses this gap in the literature by examining the role that
ethnicity plays on various court dispositions of homicide offenders in Newark, NJ, a
midsized city with high violent crime rates, and where there bulk of residents are
ethnic minorities. The city of Newark provides a unique opportunity for study due to
its ethnic makeup of approximately 86% African American or Latino population.
Additionally, 98% of the offenders arrested and charged with a homicide during the
study period, and 97% of the corresponding victims are Latino or African American,
representing ethnic homogeneity. There are several advantages to studying this issue
in light of homicide offending and victimization. Due to its severity, the adjudication
and sentencing process of homicides can serve as a barometer for national practices
(Baumer et al., 2000). Indeed, homicide is one of the best investigated (if not, the best
investigated) crime. As a result, unlike other less serious crimes, it is likely to reach
the court adjudication stage. Homicides also often receive public attention, so criminal
justice officials have less discretion in handling these cases. Hence, one can assume
that the decision-making process is “purer,” as it is more likely to be devoid of
extralegal factors related to the discretion of court actors. There are also advantages to
studying this issue in the city of Newark. As mentioned in the outset, the bulk of
sentencing research has employed large federal, state, and county data sets. As a
result, the dynamics present in midsized cities experiencing high levels of violence are
not fully explored; hence, there is a lack of knowledge on the processes affecting
jurisdictions that experience violence the most.

---

402
Race and Justice 10(4)
The Court Processing of Homicide Offenders
The bulk of homicide court case processing research has focused on the sentencing of
homicide offenders, particularly in capital cases, and very few studies have examined
conviction and pretrial decisions. Studies that have examined capital homicide cases
suggest that cases involving a racial minority offender and a Caucasian victim are
more likely to result in the offender receiving the death penalty (Baldus, Woodworth,
& Pulaski, 1985; Baumer et al., 2000; Sorensen & Wallace, 1999). For example,
Baldus, Woodworth, and Pulaski (1985) found that racial discrimination of the victim
was found in the “mid-aggravation of range of cases” (p. 1402). In a separate analysis
of prosecutorial decisions to seek the death penalty, the race of the victim was also
taken into consideration in cases of a midrange severity (Baldus et al., 1985). More
recently, a study of capital cases also examined whether the race of the victim affects
if a case is cleared and whether the defendant receives a capital charge (Petersen,
2017). They found that cases involving Latino victims had lower clearance rates and
the defendants were less likely to be charged with a capital offense.
Garfinkel (1949) was one of the first scholars to examine noncapital cases and
found that although interracial homicides were rare, incidents involving a White
victim and Black assailant elicited more severe court charges (such as murder in the
first degree) when compared to homicide incidents involving a Black victim and
Black assailant. Later homicide studies (e.g., Farrell & Swigert, 1978, 1986;
Swigert & Farrell, 1976; Wolfgang, 1958) expanded the covariates of court out-
comes to include gender, age, and social economic status. These studies found that
males, the young, African Americans, and the poor received harsher dispositions
compared to females, Caucasians, and those of higher economic status (Farrell &
Swigert, 1978, 1986). Early studies also found gender disparities in the sentencing
of homicide defendants (Farrell & Swigert, 1978) as well as significant effects
related to criminal involvement (Boris, 1979). More specifically, Boris (1979)
found that prior criminal involvement on the part of the offender affected the court
disposition of homicide cases in that offenders who had a history of violence prior
to the homicide were likely to receive a harsher disposition during preliminary
hearings.
Research within the past two decades in the United States and abroad has both
confirmed and expanded upon the earlier findings (Baumer & Martin, 2013; Baumer
et al., 2000; Johnson, Van Wingerden, & Nieuwbeerta, 2010). Baumer, Messner,
and Felson (2000) found that similar to prior research, non-White male defendants
who had a prior criminal history were more likely to be processed, and defendants
accused of murdering non-Whites were less likely to receive a conviction or the
most serious indictments. They also found that victims who engaged in what can be
perceived as “disreputable” behavior were more likely to be dismissed prior to trial
and when moved past the indictment stage were more likely to result in a conviction
of a reduced charge. Using the same data set, Baumer and Martin (2013) found that
legal variables such as offense type (e.g., first-degree vs. second-degree murder) and
type of conviction (e.g., jury vs. plea deal) had an effect on sentencing, with more

---

Pizarro et al.
403
serious offenses and jury trial resulting in longer sentences. Similar to Britt (2000),
they also found a geographic location effect, with counties scoring higher on
political conservatism and fear of crime also having more severe sanctions for
homicide offending.
Researchers have also found a relationship between victim–offender relationship
(VOR) and court outcomes (Auerhahn, 2007a; Dawson, 2004). Dawson (2004)
provides evidence that intimate partner homicide (IPH) cases are less likely to
receive a first-degree murder charge, or even go to trial, when compared to stranger
homicide incidents. Further, when IPH...