Search results

The media, the political establishment, and the federal criminal jus-community's focus on the compelling story of the firings is hardly surprising. The details emerged over a period of many months through leaks, internal Department of Justice (DOJ) emails, press releases, interviews, and dramatic congressional testimony. The media's focus on the firings obscured their deeper significance with regard to the nature of the relations between the DOJ and its ninety-three United States Attorneys' Offices (USAOs). This Article addresses this omission by looking at the consequences of these events for the balance struck between central control by Main Justice in Washington and autonomy for U.S. Attorneys in the field. The Article argues that the firings represent a departure from the historic balance of control as part of a broader effort by the DOJ to centralize operations and recapture some of the control Main Justice had lost over the past three decades.

The many serious obstacles to obtaining reliable & valid measures of the outputs of Ur criminal courts are explicated. Ignorance of the operation of criminal courts in the US is overwhelming. Data about outputs & outcomes are simply unavailable. Even if available, they would be terribly misleading if published in the form that local courts presently operate their statistical services. The lack of compiled statistics is functional to the participants in the criminal courts. Police, judges, prosecutors, & public defenders all have to answer to particular constituencies in order to obtain resources necessary to maintain their organization. Thus the emphases on convictions & tendency to deemphasize dismissals, bail decisions, etc exist, making it impossible for the researcher to gather accurate data. It is not at all unlikely that despite the current high interest in crime & crime control & the flow of considerable funds to court management & information systems, the capacity to learn how the courts really deal with crime & how costly or beneficial alternative court policies might be will be reduced rather than enhanced in the near future. S. Coler.