Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-fnpn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-04T08:32:24.816Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Federal/State Criminal Prosecution Nexus: A Case Study in Cooperation and Discretion

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 December 2018

Lisa L. Miller  and
James Eisenstein
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Contemporary studies of prosecutorial decision making at the state level are infrequent, and even fewer studies examine the discretionary decisions of federal prosecutors. In addition, virtually no scholarly literature examines the growing overlap between federal and state criminal jurisdiction. This paper advances both theoretical and empirical understandings of the organizational and political contexts in which prosecutorial discretion takes place by exploring the nexus between federal and state criminal jurisdictions. Drawing on interview research in a large urban area with several active federal/state cooperative prosecution programs, we suggest that these cooperative relations open new avenues of discretion for local and federal prosecutors; limit the authority of other court actors, including state judges; and erode the distinctions between federal and local criminal jurisdiction.

Type
Articles
Information
Law & Social Inquiry , Volume 30 , Issue 2 , Spring 2005 , pp. 239 - 268
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 2005 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Albonetti, Celesta. 1997. Sentencing Under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: Effects of Defendant Characteristics, Guilty Pleas, and Departures on Sentence Outcomes for Drug Offenses, 1991–1992. Law and Society Review 31:789–822.Google Scholar
American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section, Task Force on the Federalization of Criminal Law (ABA). 1998. The Federalization of Criminal Law. Chicago: American Bar Association.Google Scholar
Baker, John S. 1999. State Police Powers and the Federalization of Local Crime. Temple Law Review 72: 675–713.Google Scholar
Beale, Sara Sun. 1995. Too Many and Yet Too Few: New Principles to Define the Proper Limits for Federal Criminal Jurisdiction. Hastings Law Journal 46: 997–1018.Google Scholar
Beckett, Katherine. 1997. Making Crime Pay. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Benson, Michael L., and Francis, T. Cullen. 1998. Comparing Corporate Crime: Local Prosecutors at Work. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Brickey, Kathleen F. 1995. Criminal Mischief: The Federalization of American Criminal law. Hastings Law Journal 46: 1135–1174.Google Scholar
Bureau of Justice Statistics. 2002. Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics . http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook.Google Scholar
Caplow, Theodore, and Jonathon, Simon. 1999. Understanding Prison Policy and Population Trends. Crime and Justice 26: 63–120.Google Scholar
Cares, Alison C. 2002. The Federal Sentencing Penalty: A Comparison of Stateand Federal Cocaine Distribution Cases in Pennsylvania. Masters thesis, Pennsylvania State University.Google Scholar
Cole, George F. 1970. The Decision to Prosecute. Law and Society Review 4: 313–43.Google Scholar
Curtis, Dennis E. 1996. The Effect of Federalization on the Defense Function. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 543: 85–96.Google Scholar
Clymer, Steven D. 1997. Unequal Justice: The Federalization of Criminal Law. Southern California Law Review 70: 643–735.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, James. 1977. Counsel for the United States: U.S. Attorneys in the Political and Legal Worlds. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, James, John, Kramer, and Lisa, L. Miller 2001. The Federal/State Prosecution Nexus: Preliminary Empirical Findings. Paper presented at the Annual Meetings of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.Google Scholar
Engen, Rodney L., and Sara, Steen 2000. The Power to Punish: Discretion and Sentencing Reform in the War on Drugs. American Journal of Sociology 105: 1357–95.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm M., and Sam, Kamin. 1996. The Effect of “Three Strikes and You're Out” on the Courts. In Three Strikes and You're Out: Vengeance and Public Policy, ed. David, Shichor and Dale, K. Sechrist. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Flemming, Roy B., Peter, F. Nardulli, and James, Eisenstein. 1992. The Craft of Justice: Politics and Work in Criminal Courts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
Frase, Richard S. 1993. Sentencing Guidelines in the States: Lessons for State and Federal Reformers. Federal Sentencing Reporter 6: 123–28.Google Scholar
Gershman, Bennett L. 1992. The New Prosecutors. University of Pittsburgh Law Review 53: 393–457.Google Scholar
Glazer, Elizabeth. 1999. How Federal Prosecutors Can Reduce Crime. Public Interest 99: 85–99.Google Scholar
Heller, Robert. 1997. Selective Prosecution and the Federalization of Criminal Law: The Need for Meaningful Judicial Review of Prosecutorial Discretion. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 145:1309–58.Google Scholar
Heumann, Milton. 1978. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Jacoby, Joan E. 1979. The Charging Policies of Prosecutors. In The Prosecutor, ed. McDonald, W. F. Newbury Park, Calif .: Sage.Google Scholar
Litman, Harry, and Mark, D. Greenberg. 1995. Reporters' Draft for the Working Group on Federal-State Cooperation. Hastings Law Journal 46: 1319–25.Google Scholar
Lochner, Todd 2002. Strategic Behavior and Prosecutorial Agenda Setting in United States Attorneys' Offices: The Role of U.S. Attorneys and Their Assistants. Justice System Journal 23: 271–94.Google Scholar
Miethe, Terence. 1987. Charging and Plea Bargaining under Determinate Sentencing: An Investigation of the Hydraulic Displacement of Discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 78: 155–76.Google Scholar
Miller, Lisa L. 2001. The Politics of Community Crime Prevention: Implementing Operation Weed and Seed in Seattle. Burlington, Vt.: Dartmouth/Ashgate.Google Scholar
Misner, Robert L. 1996. Recasting Prosecutorial Discretion. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 86: 717–77.Google Scholar
Nagel, Ilene H., and Stephen, J. Schulhofer. 1992. A Tale of Three Cities: An Empirical Study of Charging and Bargaining Practices under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Southern California Law Review 66: 501–66.Google Scholar
O'Hear, Michael M. 2002. Legal Issues and Sociolegal Consequences of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Iowa Law Review 87: 721–73.Google Scholar
Richman, Daniel C. 2001. Project Exile and the Allocation of Federal Law Enforcement Activity. Arizona Law Review 43:369–411.Google Scholar
Russell-Einhorn, Malcolm L. 2002. Federal-Local Law Enforcement Collaboration in Investigating and Prosecuting Urban Crime, 1982–1999: Drugs, Weapons, and Gangs. National Institute of Justice Research in Brief , March.Google Scholar
Savelsberg, Joachim J. 1992. Law that Does Not Fit Society: Sentencing Guidelines as a Neoclassical Reaction to the Dilemma of Substantivized Law. American Journal of Sociolgy 97: 1346–87.Google Scholar
Shichor, David, and Dale, K. Sechrist. 1996. Three Strikes and You're Out: Vengeance and Public Policy. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.Google Scholar
Simons, Michael A. 2000. Prosecutorial Discretion and Prosecution Guidelines: A Case Study in Controlling Federalization. New York University Law Review 75: 893–965.Google Scholar
Stuntz, William J. 2001. The Pathological Politics of Criminal Law. Michigan Law Review 100: 505–600.Google Scholar
Walker, Patrick, and Pagrati, Patrick 2000. Trends in Firearms Cases From Fiscal Year 1989 through 1998, and the Workload Implications for the U.S. District Courts. Washington, D.C.: Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts.Google Scholar
Young, Cheryl D., and John, J. Hindera. 1999. Judicial Intergovernmentalism: The Impact of Federalism on the American Court System. Public Administration Quarterly 22: 407–26.Google Scholar