Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
Volume 71
Issue 2 Summer
Article 9
Summer 1980
Investment of Prosecution Resources in Career
Criminal Cases
William M. Rhodes
Follow this and additional works at: h6ps://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc
Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and Criminal
Justice Commons
5is Symposium is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.
Recommended Citation
William M. Rhodes, Investment of Prosecution Resources in Career Criminal Cases, 71 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 118 (1980)
9901-4169/80/7102-0118S02.00/0
THE
JOURNAL
OF
CRIMINAL
LAW
&
CRIMINOLOGY
Vol.
71,
No.
2
Copyright
©
1980
by
Northwestern
University
School
of
Law
Printedm
U.S.A.
INVESTMENT
OF
PROSECUTION
RESOURCES
IN
CAREER
CRIMINAL
CASES
WILLIAM
M.
RHODES*
BACKGROUND
Justification
for
a
career
criminal program
rests
on
several
basic
assumptions:
(1)
that
a
small
number
of
offenders
(habitual
criminals)
account
for
a
disproportionate
amount
of
crime;
if
these
offenders
were
imprisoned,
crime
would
be
reduced
significantly;
t
(2)
that
habitual
criminals
are
dis-
tinguishable
from
"routine"
offenders
who
commit
fewer
and
less
serious
offenses;
2
(3)
that
once
an
habitual
offender
is
identified,
his case
can
be
singled
out
for
increased
prosecutorial
effort;
and
(4)
that
this
special
handling
will
enhance
the
probability
of
conviction
and,
perhaps
also,
the
length
of
prison
time
received
by
the
convicted
offender.
3
*
Senior
Economist,
Institute
for
Law
and
Social
Re-
search.
'James
Q.
Wilson has
been
a major
proponent
of
this
position.
See
J.
WILSON,
THINKING
ABOUT
CRIME
(1975);
Wilson
&
Boland,
Crime,
in
THE
URBAN
PREDICAMENT
179
(1976).
Several
researchers
have
shown
that
a
small
number
of
offenders
account
for
a disproportionate
amount
of
crime.
See
J.
PETERSILIA,
FOCUSING
ATTENTION
ON
CAREER
CRIMINALS-AN
IDEA
WHOSE
TIME
HAS
COME
(RAND
P-6112,
1978);
K.
WILLIAMS,
THE
SCOPE
AND
PREDICTION
OF
RECIDIVISM
(INSLAW,
PROMIS
Re-
search
Publication
No.
10,
1979);
M.
WOLFGANG,
R.
FIGLIO
&
T.
SELLIN,
DELINQUENCY
IN
A
BIRTH
COHORT
(1972).
However,
researchers
have
questioned
how
large
an
impact
the
incarceration
of
offenders
has
on
crime
rates.
For
an
overview,
see
Cohen,
The
Incapacitative
Effect
of
Imprisonment:
A
Critical
Review
of
the
Literature,
in
DETER-
RENCE
AND
INCAPACITATION:
ESTIMATING
THE
EFFECTS
OF
CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS
ON
CRIME
RATES
187
(1978).
2
But
see
K.
WILLIAMS,
note
I
supra;
Dershowitz,
The
Law
of
Dangerousness:
Some
Fictions
about
Prediction,
23
J.
LEGAL
EDUc.
24
(1971);
Monahan,
The
Prediction
of
Violent
Criminal
Behavior.
A
Methodological
Critique
and
Prospectus,
in
DETERRENCE
AND
INCAPACITATION:
ESTIMATING
THE
EF-
FECTS
OF
CRIMINAL
SANCTIONS
ON
CRIME
RATES
244
(1978);
von
Hirsch,
Prediction
of
Criminal
Conduct
and
Pre-
ventive Confinement
of
Convicted
Persons,
21
BUFFALO
L.
REV.
717
(1972).
3
In
general,
seeJ.
McMullin,
The
Development
of
the
Career
Criminal
Concept
(Sept.
20-21,
1979)
(workshop
paper,
Career
Criminal
Conference,
Alexandria,
Va.).
For evaluations,
see
Chelimsky
&
Dahmann,
The
MITRE
Corporation's
National
Evaluation
of
the
Career
Criminal
Pro-
gram:
A
Discussion
of
the
Findings,
71
J.
CRIM.
L.
&
C.
102
(1980);
Phillips
&
Cartwright,
The
California
Criminal
Prosecution
Program
One Year
Later,
71
J.
CRIM.
L.
&
C.
107
(1980).
The
research
reported
in
this
paper
initially
concentrates
on
the
third
premise
that
career
crim-
inal
units
increase
attorney
time
devoted
to
the
handling
of
habitual
offenders.
The
findings
were
drawn
from
a
larger
study
deriving
case
weights
for
the
prosecution
of
adult
felony
cases
in
Los
Angeles
County,
California.
4
In
that
study,
case
weights
were
defined
as
the
average
amount
of
attorney
time spent
on
a
criminal
case,
holding
constant
the
type
of
offense
and
disposition.
Weights
were
calculated
independently
for
both
the
career
criminal
unit
and
the
routine
caseload.
A
summary
of
the
methodology
used
in
the
Los
Angeles
study
is
provided
in
the
second
section
of
this
paper.
The
third
section
of
the
paper
presents
(1)
case
weights
for
the
prosecution
of
career
crim-
inal
and
noncareer
criminal
cases;
(2)
the
distri-
bution
of
attorney
time,
broken
down
by
the
activ-
ity
with
which
the
attorneys
were
engaged,
for
career
criminal
and
noncareer
criminal
cases;
and
(3)
the
distribution
of
attorney
time
over
the
life
of
a
typical
case,
both
for
career
criminal
and
routine
cases.
After
this
discussion
of
case
weights
and
attorney
time
distribution,
the
report
discusses
the
premise
that
career
criminal
units
enhance
the
probability
of
conviction
of
habitual
offenders.
METHODOLOGY
To
derive
the
case
weights,
it
was
necessary
to
collect
information
on
the
amount
of
attorney
time
spent
on
prosecution.
It
was
anticipated
that
this
time
should
be
categorized
by
the
stage
in
the
criminal
justice
process
that
the
case
had
reached
and
what the
attorney
was
doing
while
he
worked
on
the
case.
This
information
was
collected
in
the
first
set
of
data-the
time
data.
Daily
time
data
were
collected
over
a
seventy-
three
day
period
from
all
deputy
district
attorneys
who
processed
felony
cases
in
the
four
branch
offices
and
the
main
office
of
the
Los
Angeles
County
District
Attorney.
In
addition,
the
study
distinguished
cases
handled
by
the
career
criminal
4
See
W.
Rhodes,
R.
Hildenbrand,
J.
Hausner
&
T.
Dungworth,
Case
Weights
for
the
Prosecution
and
De-
fense
of
Felony
Cases
in
Los
Angeles
(INSLAW
Nov.
8,
1979).
8
CAREER
CRIMINAL
SYMPOSIUM
A.
District
Attorney
Case
Weights:
County-wide,
Exclusive
of
the
Special
Prosecution
Units
in
Central
Office
Dismiss
Bench
Jury
Guilty
SOT
Case Type
Mun.
Ct.
Sup.
Ct.
Plea Acquittal*
Convict
Acquittal
Convict
Acquittal
Robbery
181
556
530
474**
591** 535
2363
2307
Burglary
193
264
465
432 798
765
1447
1414
B.
District
Attorney
Case Weights:
Special
Units
*SOT:
Standing
on
the
transcript.
**Fewer
than
5
observations
in
at
least
one
of
the
time
slices.
***Zero
observations
in
at
least
one of
the
time
slices.
****Too few observations
to
estimate.
FIGURE
1
Deputy
district
attorney
time
and
activity
form
(DA-A)
unit.
Attorneys
were
instructed
to
fill
out
form
DA-
A
(shown
in
figure
1)
daily.
Each
deputy
district
attorney
was
asked
to
sup-
ply
his
name,
a
unique
identification
number,
and
the
date
the
form
was
completed.
Deputies
were
asked
to
supply
the
name
of
the
case
upon
which
they
were
working
and
the
complaint
number
of
that
case.
Together
with the
date
and attorney
identification
number,
these
data
elements
enabled
the matching
of
cases
reported
on
the
time
form
with
the
second
data
base-case
attributes
stored
in
the
Prosecutor's
Management Information
Sys-
tem
maintained
by
the
office
of the
District
Attor-
ney,
Los
Angeles
County.
The
second
column
of the
form
was
used
to
record
case
status,
defined
as
the
point
in
the
judicial
proceeding
reached
by
the
case.
Case
status
number
(1)
was
used
if
the attorney
worked
on
noncase-related
matter.
For
other
case-related
mat-
ter,
the
status
indicated
whether
the
case was
at
the
precomplaint
stage,
(2);
being
presented
to
a
grand
jury,
(3);
or
in
the
process
of
being
filed,
(4).
Status
(5)
indicated
that
the
case was
in
the.
mu-
nicipal court,
status
(6)
that
it
was
in
pretrial
in
the
superior court,
and
status
(7)
that
it
was
at trial
in
the
superior court.
Status
(8)
represented
that
the
case
had
reached
probation
and
sentencing,
while
status
(9)
indicated
that
a
probation
violation
hearing
was
being
conducted.
Status
(10)
indicated
that
the
case
had
reached
an
appellate
court.
Sta-
tuses
(11)
and
(12)
indicated
that
the
attorney
was
working
on
multiple
cases.
The
fourth
column
of the
form
was
used
to
record
the
attorney's
activities,
broadly
defined
to
include
time
spent
on
court
appearances,
confer-
ences,
telephone
calls,
preparation, and
other
activ-
ities.
These
broad
categories
were
subclassified
into
forty-five
narrowly
defined
subactivities
that,
to-
gether
with the
twelve
status
codes,
provided
540
unique
elements
in
a
status-activity
matrix,
a
sum-
mary
of
which
is
provided
in
the
next
section.
Case
weights,
that
is
the
average
time
spent
by
attorneys
on
criminal
cases,
were
calculated.
Be-
cause
of
the
way
data
were
collected,
it
was
neces-
sary
to
develop
a
model
to
calculate
these
weights.
5
Using this
model,
the
following
steps were
involved
in
deriving
these
weights:
(a)
Cases
were selected
only
if
the
first
charge
was
rob-
bery
or burglary.
(b)
Chronological
time
spent
in
municipal
court
was
divided
into ten
equal
time
"slices."
The
average
5
Justification
for
this
model
can be
found
in
W.
Rhodes
&
R.
Hildenbrand,
A
Model
for
Estimating
Case
Weights
for
the
Prosecution
of
Felony
Cases
(Sept.
1979)
(paper
presented
at
the
Annual Meeting
of
the
Southern
Economic
Ass'n,
Atlanta,
Ga.).
6
Chronological
time
means
the
time
from
filing
to
preliminary
hearing
in
the
municipal
court
and
the
time
from
superior
court
arraignment
to
trial.
WILLIAM
M
RHODES
amount
of
attorney
time
spent
in
each
slice
was
calculated.
These
ten
slices
were
then
added
to de-
termine
the
average
time
spent
in
municipal
court.
(c)
The
above
process
was
repeated
for
superior
court.
Thus,
it
was
possible
to
speak
of
the
average
time
spent
both
in
municipal
court
and
superior
court.
(d)
The
average
amount
of
attorney
time
spent
on
case
screening
and
sentencing
was
also
determined.
(e)
The
above
four
times-the
averages
for
case
screen-
ing, municipal
court, superior
court,
and
sentenc-
ing-were
summed
separately
for
cases
ending
in
rejections,
dismissals
in
municipal
court,
dismissals
in
superior court,
guilty
pleas,
bench
trials,
and
jury
trials.
These
average
times
are
reported
in
the
next
section
as
case
weights.
CASE
WEIGHTS
AND
TIME
DISTRIBUTION
How
does
the
amount
of
attorney
time
spent
on
the
prosecution
of
habitual
offenders
compare
with
the
routine
prosecution
of
criminal
cases?
Table
1
presents
case
weights
for
robbery
and
burglary
cases,
two
offenses
of
which
the
career
criminal
unit
in
Los
Angeles
County
handled
a
fairly
large
volume.
Because
of
the
small
number
of
cases
observed,
table
1
reports
a
composite
weight
for
career
criminal
cases.
It
was
possible
to derive
distinct
case
weights
for
the
routine
prosecution
of
robbery
and
burglary
cases.
Regardless
of
the
disposition,
it
is
evident
that
attorneys
devoted
more
time
to
the
cases
of habit-
ual
offenders
processed
through
the
career
criminal
program
than
they
did
to
the
cases
of
other
offend-
ers
processed
through
regular
prosecution.
For
ex-
ample,
a
guilty
plea
required
about
nine
hours
for
a
routine
robbery
case
and
about
eight
hours
for
a
routine
burglary.
But
for
a
career
criminal
case,
a
guilty
plea
required
nearly
sixty
hours.
Jury
trials
also
were
more
expensive
when
prosecuted
by
the
career
criminal
unit.
A
routine
robbery
trial
re-
quired about
thirty-nine
hours;
a
routine
burglary,
about
twenty-four
hours.
A
career
criminal
case,
in
contrast,
required
close
to
185
hours.
Overall,
it
appears
that
conviction
by the
career
criminal
unit
demanded
between
five
and
seven
times
as
many
attorney
hours
as
did
conviction
through
normal
prosecution.
Investigation
revealed
that
career
criminal
attor-
neys
spent
more
time
on
virtually
every
aspect
of
prosecution-court
appearances,
conferences,
tele-
phone
calls,
preparation,
and
other
activities.
How-
ever,
the
expanded
amount
of
attorney
time
was
not
proportional
across
each
activity
group.
First,
career criminal
attorneys
appeared
to
spend
proportionally
somewhat
less
time
on
court
appearances,
32%
of
total
time
compared
with
30%
to
44%
for
the
nonspecialized
offices.
They
also
spent
proportionally
less
time
on
administrative
and
noncase-related
activities,
9%
relative
to
9%
to
14%.
The
implication
is
that
specialized
attorneys
spent proportionally
somewhat
more
time
on
prep-
aration.
Second,
the
division
of
this
case
prepara-
tion
time
was
interesting.
Special
unit
attorneys
spent
a
disproportionate
amount
of
their
confer-
ence
and
telephone
time
on
witnesses,
43%
for
the
special
unit
and
12%
to
31%
for
the
nonspecialized
units.
Recalling
that
career
criminal
attorneys
spent
about
five
times
as
much
effort
per
case
as
their
counterparts
in
nonspecialized
units,
it
is
evident
that
witness
contacts
increased
by
a factor
of
about
ten
for
career
criminal
cases.
Police
witnesses
got
somewhat
less
attention;
special
unit
prosecutors
spent
16%
of
their
confer-
ence
and
telephone
time
with
police,
relative
to
21%
to
29%
for
the
rest
of
the
office.
These
findings
may
imply
that
"quality"
prosecution
relies
less
upon
police
to
build
the
case
and
more
on
the
input
of
witnesses
and
victims.
This
is
not
to
say
that
special
unit
prosecutors
ignored
police
input.
On
the
contrary,
because
of
the
greater
absolute
time spent
on
criminal
cases
by
special
unit
prose-
cutors,
even
the
smaller
proportion
of
their
time
accounted
for more
total
police
input
into
case
preparation.
The
point
is
that
when
attorneys
have
a
choice,
they
choose
to
invest
more
heavily
in
increasing
witness
input
into
the
case.
There
is
likely
to
be
a
lesson
in
this
"revealed
preference"
for
additional
witness
input,
suggesting
that
the
quality
of
prosecution
would
be
enhanced
by
spe-
cial
programs
aimed
at
increasing
the
role
of
wit-
nesses.
Special
unit
prosecutors
also
spent
dispropor-
tionately
less
time
on
plea
negotiations
and
other
interaction
with
the
opposing
counsel.
Special
unit
prosecutors
spent
19%
of
their
combined
confer-
ence
and
telephone
time
in
this
manner,
relative
to
17%
to
43%
by noncareer
criminal
attorneys.
These
differences
are
so
large
that
they
suggest
that
spe-
cial
unit
prosecutors
actually
spent
about
the
same
amount
of
absolute
time
on
plea
negotiations
as
did
the attorneys
from
the
regular
units
despite
the
overall
heavier
expenditure
in
career
criminal
cases.
The
implication
is
that
special
unit
attorneys
spent
much
more
time
on
building
cases
than
they
did
on
settling
them.
It
also
was
found
that
attorneys
in
the
career
[Vol.
71
CAREER
CRIMINAL
SYMPOSIUM
TABLE
I
CASE
WEIGHTS
FOR
ROB3BERY
AND
BURGLARY
COURT APPEARANCES CONFI
1,.
Aersiatent
e1.
Citizez
12.
Prellalo-ry
Hrg 32.
Witte.
13. Motions 33.
Poll..
14.
Teito-SOT/SOT(+)
Agent/
IS.
Triol.hb..h
34.
oppoi
16.
Tral-Jury
35.
Jodge
17.
Probation
& 36. too-o
Sentelcing
Heg 37. Other
18.
Taking plea
(guilty/
38.
Plea
N
tolol
10. Grand
Jory-forso
20.
Poobation Viol. Hg
21. DOeo:eI
related
22. Other
ERENCES
Offier/
'Agency
01
Counsel
egotiation
TELEPHONE
41.
Cits
42.
Wtoe.s
43. Police
Officer/
Aget/AAeroy
4.
osing
Counsel
46:
.
ttlOffi.,
47. Other
STATUS
1. Not
C...
Related
(to
specific
.. e)
2.
Poo--oploint
(potential
.e
specific
suspect)
3. Grood
Jury
Matter
4. Filing protes
S. Municipal Coast
6. superior Court
oro-toil
7. Sopeej" Coctrr
trial
(up to
oentsotg)
8, Soporior
Cort-
prohotto
&
sentencng
9.
supero
Coot-
probatio
violotio.
A
ether
Post
P&S
I0. Appellate Court
PREPARATION
51.
Point.
&
Auth.(doofting)
52. Pleadings
53.
Iemorondo
54.
Fact
Investigation
5. Legal
Research
56. Seh Warrant
(draftig)
57. Seh Warrant
(review)
58.
Rejectiots
S. Other PFee.
OTHER -ACTIVITIES
61.
Corepoodoote
62..Tlaiolog
63. Te vel
64.
Adrniiottive
65. Waiting for
opposing Coo.sel
66.
Wastiog tor Court
to
each atter
67.
Waitin for Witness
68.
Other lude
:peiol
projects
&
assortments)
Ml LONG
BEACH
M
CAREER
CRIMINAL
El
ORGANIZED
CRIME
El
MAJOR
FRAUDS
.I
a
ci
Time
Case
Name
S
js
Complaint
No.
Acti-
Explanation
(if
necessary)
Time
tsVity
Hirs.
[Mins.
criminal
unit
invested
their
time
earlier
in
the life
of
a
case.
As
figure
2
illustrates,
very
little time
was
spent
early in
the
life
of
a
routine
criminal
case;
instead,
attorney
time
was
concentrated
at the
preliminary
hearing.
This
was
in
contrast
to
career
criminal
cases,
for
which
the
attorney
investigated
the
case
immediately
following
filing
and
contin-
ued
his
preparation throughout
the
case's
life
in
municipal
court.
In
superior
court,
the
pattern
was
similar.
Little
time
was
spent
during
the
first
thirty
to
sixty days
in
the
life
of
a
routine
criminal
case,
but
for
a
career
criminal
case,
the
attorney
input
was
immediate
and
sustained
throughout
the
case's
life
in
superior
court.
Taken
together,
these
findings
seem
to
indicate
that
Los Angeles
County
has
been
successful
in
channeling additional
resources
into
the
prosecu-
tion
of
career
criminal
cases.
Of
the
resources
that
were
spent,
a
greater
proportion
was
devoted
to
case
preparation,
especially
to
preparation
of
lay
witnesses.
Resources were
devoted earlier
in
the
life
of
the
cases
of
habitual
offenders,
and the
commit-
ment
of
resources
was
sustained
throughout
the
life
of
these
cases.
The
question
remains
open,
of
course,
whether
the
application
of
those
resources
improved
the
prosecution
of
cases.
RETURNS
TO
INCREASING
PROSECUTIVE
RESOURCES
It
is
extremely difficult
to
draw
inferences
con-
was
more
likely
than
regular
prosecution
to
secure
a
prison
sentence.
The
probability of
conviction,
of
course,
as
well
as
the probability
of
a
prison
sen-
tence,
depended
on
more
than
the
expenditure
made
on prosecution.
Other
factors,
such
as
the
seriousness
of the
offense
and
the
quality
of
the
evidence
pointing
toward
conviction,
were
rele-
vant.
An
attempt
to
control
for
some
of
these
factors
was
made
by
holding
the
following con-
stant:
(1)
the
type
of
defense counsel;
(2)
the
number
of
charges;
(3)
the
number
and
type
of
witnesses;
and
(4)
the
elements
of
the
offense,
such
as
the amount
of
harm
done
to
persons
and the
amount of
property
loss.
According
to
the
regression
results,
the
fact
that
the
career criminal
unit
prosecuted
the
case
did
not
have
a
statistically
significant
impact
on
the
probability
of
conviction.
One must be
very
cau-
tious in
drawing
a
firm
conclusion
about
career
cerning
the
effectiveness
of
the
career
criminal
program.
In
this
section
of the
report,
regression
analysis
is
used
to
determine
whether the
expend-
iture
on career
criminal
cases
increased
the proba-
bility
of
conviction
and,
for
convicted
cases,
whether
prosecution
by
the
career
criminal
unit
criminal
units
based on this
finding,
however.
Only
5%
of the
cases
entering
the
analysis
were
career
criminal
cases.
It
is
always
difficult to
predict
when
so
few
cases
are available
for
analysis.
Additionally,
it
is
difficult
to
believe
that
the
variables
entering
E'-CENTRAL
E"'POMONA
ElNORWALK
C3
SEXL
ASSLT
1980]
TVTTT'T
rA
rn