Understanding Prosecutorial Discretion in Florida Felony Courts, 2017

For decades scholars have called for research that examines how race and other indicators of social inequality affect the full course of case processing from initial filing to final disposition. A lack of accessible data, however, has largely frustrated researchers' efforts to meet this challenge. Unlike sentencing data, which has been made readily accessible to researchers by the courts and sentencing commissions, prosecutors almost always hold pre-conviction data privately. This lack of pre-sentencing data is particularly problematic as there is growing interest in understanding how line prosecutors use their broad and, typically, unreviewable discretion. This growing interest stems from the fact that line prosecutors have been made more powerful by sentencing reforms, which constrained the discretion of judges and parole boards.
Despite the power and prominence of chief prosecutors, their discretionary influence on case outcomes has been neglected in the existing research. Chief prosecutors develop varying policies and practices to guide the case processing decisions of the line prosecutors under their supervision. The organizational policies and practices established by chief prosecutors are arguably the purest form of prosecutorial discretion, as policy variations between chief prosecutors may lead to identical kinds of cases prosecuted by different state attorney's offices systematically receiving distinctly different sanctions. Variations in the philosophies and practices of chief prosecutors have been thrust into stark relief by the rise of "progressive prosecutors," who campaign on system reforms often designed to reduce pretrial detention, mass incarceration, and racial disparities in incarceration. To achieve these goals, progressive, reformist prosecutors de-emphasize the application of punitive punishments for low-level offenses (e.g., drug possession, driving offenses) in favor of non-prosecution or diversion. Yet, the existing empirical research largely neglects the role of chief prosecutors in shaping case outcomes and racial disparities therein and little research examines variations in case outcomes between progressive and traditional chief prosecutors.
While prosecutors are clearly the most influential of court actors, they work collaboratively with other court actors to make decisions. In Florida, judges, prosecutors, and public defenders are usually assigned to specific courtrooms and, as a result, they work together repeatedly in what is known as court "working groups." These court working groups are hypothesized to develop distinctive practices and routines; however, little existing research assesses whether racially/ethnically diverse working group reach more equitable decisions leading to egalitarian outcomes.