AREAS OF INTEREST:
Law & Society, Courts, and Adjudication Processes and Practices: plea bargaining and sentencing, indigent defense, pretrial services and diversion practices, psychology and the law, wrongful convictions, and juror decision-making;
Criminal Justice Reform and Public Policy: program implementation and evaluation, policy analysis, court and legal reforms, and law enforcement programs and practices;
Individual Differences in the Criminal Justice System: juvenile justice issues, racial bias and inequalities, gender differences in legal decision-making, and sexual assault policies
Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Kirstin A. Morgan, Reveka V. Shteynberg, & Andrew L.B. Davies. (2018). What difference does a lawyer make? Impacts of early counsel on misdemeanor bail decisions and outcomes in rural and small town courts. Criminal Justice Policy Review. Advance Online Publication. doi: 10.1177/0887403417726133.
Abstract: Recent court decisions and state legislation have highlighted the significance of ensuring that criminal defendants are represented by counsel at their first appearances in court, where judges make critical decisions on pretrial release, bail, and detention. Yet many jurisdictions do not routinely provide counsel to indigent defendants at this stage. We hypothesize that when defendants are represented by counsel at first appearance (CAFA), they are more likely to be released on recognizance, are less likely to have high bail set, and are consequently less likely to be jailed pending disposition. We explore the impact of lawyers’ presence by comparing pretrial decisions and bail outcomes across samples of misdemeanor cases in three rural counties in upstate New York: cases with and without CAFA. We find that these counties saw shifts in decisions or outcomes. We consider the implications of these findings for future research, court practices, and public policy.
Worden, Alissa Pollitz., Andrew L.B. Davies, Reveka V. Shteynberg, & Kirstin A. Morgan. (2017). Court reform: Why simple solutions might not fail? – A case study of implementation of counsel at first appearance, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 14(2).
Abstract: In this article we investigate the implementation of programs intended to ensure that defendants in criminal courts receive legal counsel at their first appearances before judges. Efforts to reform court practices are often stymied by courts’ fragmented and adversarial structures and by reformers’ misconceptions about how they operate. We find that the public defense administrators who voluntarily launched these programs largely overcame these difficulties by adopting incremental approaches to expanding defense services, designing programs that were adapted to local conditions, and by persevering in the face of political resistance.
Redlich, Allison D. & Reveka V. Shteynberg. (2016). To plead or not to plead: A comparison of juvenile and adult true and false plea decisions. Law and Human Behavior, 40(6).
Abstract: In a criminal justice system in which almost every adjudicated defendant, regardless of age, pleads guilty, it becomes important to understand the decision-making process underlying this choice. In the present research, we examined how age (juvenile vs. young adult), guilt versus innocence, and plea comprehension influenced the decision to plead guilty and the underlying plea rationale. We found that whereas age did not affect willingness to plead guilty when participants were asked to assume guilt in a hypothetical scenario, juveniles were more than twice as likely as young adults to plead guilty when asked to assume innocence. In addition, consistent with past research and developmental theory, juveniles were significantly less likely than adults to consider the short- and long-term consequences of the decision, and to understand and appreciate plea-related information. We also found that legal knowledge, after controlling for age, was positively (albeit weakly) related to plea decisions, but only for guilty participants. Implications for juveniles and adults involved in the criminal justice system, as well as wrongful convictions, are discussed.
Morgan, Kirstin A., Reveka V. Shteynberg, Rebecca Ackerman, Cynthia G. Lee. (2018). Incorporating client perspectives into indigent defense research: A guide for practitioners. Washington, DC: National Legal Aid & Defenders Association (NLADA), 1-64.
Summary: This paper guides practitioners and researchers through the core phases involved in designing and conducting research that incorporates client perspectives into indigent defense research. It is organized into chapters that track the phases of research planning and process: Phase 1 – Getting started; Phase 2 – Developing goals: Identifying the purpose of the study; Phase 3 – Selecting the data collection method; Phase 4 – Designing the instrument; Phase 5 – Sampling strategy; Phase 6 – Collecting the data; and Phase 7: Analyzing the data. In addition the report’s appendices contain reference materials that should be of value to anyone developing their own research project. In Appendix A, case studies are shared about recent experiences of two New York City defender organizations, the New York County Defender Services (NYCDS) and the Bronx Defenders (BxD), in undertaking research into client perspectives. Appendices B, C, and D provide synopses of published research on attorney-client satisfaction, doctor-patient satisfaction, and customer satisfaction. Appendix E provides specific examples of the types of research questions, plus synopses of published customer satisfaction research. Appendices F and G include lists of resources by helpful categories. Finally, Appendix H provides a glossary of research terminology referenced through the guide.
Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Reveka V. Shteynberg, Kirstin A. Morgan, & Andrew L.B. Davies (2017). Beyond the city limits: Evaluating court reforms in rural and small-town courts. Translational Criminology, 13.
Summary: A defendant’s first appearance in court is usually a brief affair, but the decisions made there—on charges, pretrial release, and bail—carry consequences for his or her economic security, family stability, and of course, verdict and sentencing. For this reason, experts and advocates argue that counsel at first appearance (CAFA) is essential to effective legal representation, and over the last decade legal rulings have edged toward cementing CAFA as a 6th Amendment right. But in many courts, defendants who cannot afford a private attorney, and have not yet been assigned a public defender, must face the bench alone. In 2013 the New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services (ILS) invited counties’ indigent defense organizations to apply for grants to implement CAFA programs, emphasizing that counties should tailor their plans to local conditions and needs. In 2014 the National Institute of Justice awarded research funding to the University at Albany, in partnership with ILS, to evaluate the implementation and impacts of six of those CAFA programs. These six programs focused primarily on the many rural and small-town courts where CAFA was not already common practice. Most court research takes place in urban settings, where caseloads are large and record-keeping is computerized. But what we know about urban courts and reforms may not accurately describe rural jurisdictions. Over the course of (to date) 40 site visits (and 12,000 miles on our odometers), we observed firsthand the critical work that practitioners undertook to successfully implement their programs, and we also gained deeper understanding of the diverse organizational and political contexts in which these courts operate. The CAFA evaluation project offers lessons about reform and research in these small courts. First, reforms designed with urban courts in mind may not scale as expected onto smaller courts, and practitioners must be strategic in adapting them to their communities. Second, field research and data collection in these settings are resource-intensive undertakings, but researchers can capitalize on time spent in the field to better understand the distinctive dynamics of these courts. And third, the work required to meet these challenges has the potential to improve both the delivery of legal services and the quality of evaluation research.
Shteynberg, Reveka V. (2018). The Eighth Amendment: Excessive Bails, Excessive Fines, and Cruel and Unusual Punishments. In Gale College Researcher Series Online. Gale Cengage Learning; Baltimore, MD: Words & Numbers, Inc.
Abstract: The Eighth Amendment provides that “excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” The Eighth Amendment is part of the first ten Amendments – which together are referred to as the Bill of Rights – of the Constitution of the United States. Through the Eighth Amendment, individuals charged with committing an offense are protected against excessive punishments by the government. This article provides an in-depth discussion of each of the three distinct clauses within the Eighth Amendment. The excessive bail and excessive fines clauses are discussed as they relate to both pretrial bail decisions and fines imposed as part of a sentence. The section on the cruel and unusual punishments clause includes a discussion of proportionality as it relates to both prison and non-prison punishments. This article concludes with a discussion of the use of this clause in three key areas of case law: cases involving prison conditions, capital punishment and the death penalty, and juvenile offenders.
Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. (2015). Policing juvenile delinquency. In M.D. Krohn & J. Lane (Eds.), Wiley Handbook of Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice; Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell Publishers.
Abstract: Police have many responsibilities in their roles to protect and serve: crime prevention; crime intervention; and crime investigation. This chapter discusses characteristics of juvenile delinquents and police practices. Research on juvenile delinquency finds that minorities and economically disadvantaged males are overwhelmingly represented as suspected offenders in the criminal justice system. Recent developmental research has painted a picture of juvenile delinquents as immature and impulsive decision‐makers. The chapter emphasizes that the public holds many misperceptions of youthful offenders, perceptions that have greatly shaped policy. Police officers and law enforcement officers are the gatekeepers to the criminal justice system. Juvenile adjudication is based almost exclusively on police discretion to arrest and file charges against juvenile suspects that then make them defendants. The crime prevention practices discussed in the chapter focuses on school‐, family‐, and community‐based programs. Police‐citizen contact is the largest predictor of attitudes toward and satisfaction with juvenile policing.
Davies, Andrew L.B., Reveka V. Shteynberg, Kirstin A. Morgan, Alissa Pollitz Worden. (August 28, 2018). Guaranteeing representation at first Court appearances may be better for defendants, and cheaper for local governments. London School of Economics United States Centre’s American Politics and Policy (LSE USAPP) Blog. (Note: This article is based on the Worden et al. (2018) paper. My co-authors and I were asked by the LSE USAPP to turn our CJPR manuscript into a featured article for their lay readers.)
Summary: “If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.” It’s a familiar phrase, but what does “appointed” really mean? In many jurisdictions in the United States, even after a judge appoints counsel for you, you may spend days or weeks in jail before you actually meet your lawyer. This article examines the impact of a program in upstate New York designed to provide counsel at first appearance (CAFA) in court to persons facing misdemeanor charges. We examined whether the presence of CAFA – that is, the physical presence of a lawyer at the defendant’s side – could change judges’ decisions to detain, release, and set bail. We compared detention outcomes before CAFA was introduced to those immediately after its introduction in three pseudonymous counties, ‘Bleek,’ ‘Lake,’ and ‘Hudson.’ Our results suggest two things. First, having counsel present at first appearances can change the pattern of decisions judges make. Judges may release more people with fewer conditions, and impose fewer financial barriers upon those from whom they demand bail, with the cumulative result that fewer people will be detained pretrial. Second, having counsel present may ultimately save incarceration costs – often rated at over a hundred dollars per inmate per day – which could save counties and other local governments money.
MANUSCRIPTS IN PROGRESS
Henderson, Kelsey S. & Reveka V. Shteynberg. The impact of attorney credibility, expertise, and trustworthiness on plea decision-making. (In progress; Draft available upon request)
Shteynberg, Reveka V. & Alissa Pollitz Worden. Hidden decision processes: Modeling plea bargains in rural New York. (In progress; Draft available upon request)
Shteynberg, Reveka V. & Allison D. Redlich. A qualitative examination of the decision to plead guilty: The role of gender in juvenile and young adult plea decision-making. (In progress; Draft available upon request)
Worden, Alissa Pollitz & Reveka V. Shteynberg. Bail and pretrial reforms in the lower criminal courts. (Invited book chapter submission, under contract)
Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Reveka V. Shteynberg, Kirstin A. Morgan, Andrew L.B. Davies. The impact of counsel at first appearance on pretrial release in felony arraignments. (Proposed paper accepted into a special issue on public defense in Criminal Justice and Policy Review)
RESEARCH CITED IN AMICUS BRIEFS AND COURT OPINIONS
U.S. Supreme Court Case (Amicus Brief)
- Larry Newton Jr. v State of Indiana, Court of Appeals of Indiana, 5th District, on the issue of granting certiorari because the threat of the death penalty, a punishment the USSC has since recognized as unconstitutional, rendered the plea negotiations coercive. Redlich and Shteynberg (2016) was cited in the Amicus Brief as supporting research/authorities:
- Brief of Amici Curiae Juvenile Law Center, The Promise of Justice Initiative, and Children and Family Justice Center in Support of Petitioner
State Court Case (Dissenting Court Opinion)
- People v. Tiger, State of New York Court of Appeals (2018): majority holds that the defendant’s actual innocence claim is not a ground for relief. The dissenting opinion cited Redlich and Shteynberg (2016) as research supporting why it should be.
Invited Webinar Presentation
2016 Morgan, Kirstin A., & Reveka V. Shteynberg. Webinar: A graduate student’s guide to getting involved in Indigent Defense Research. This webinar was presented for the National Legal Aid & Defender Association, with support from the Open Society Foundations. Invited presenter by the NLADA, August 18, 2016. PowerPoint and webinar available at http://www.nlada.org/webinars/research-students-indigent-defense
Invited Brown Bag Presentation
2017 Shteynberg, Reveka V. & Denver, Megan. Brown Bag: Obtaining Federal Dissertation Funding (NSF/NIJ). School of Criminal Justice Brown Bag, University at Albany, SUNY, March 6, 2017.
Invited and Peer-Reviewed Presentations
2018 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Alissa Pollitz Worden. “Hidden Decision Processes: Modeling plea bargains in rural New York.” Paper to be presented at the Law and Society Annual Meeting, Toronto, Canada, June, 2018.
2017 Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Kirstin A. Morgan, Reveka V. Shteynberg, Andrew L.B. Davies. “What Difference does a lawyer make? The effect of counsel at arraignment on detention and bail decisions in misdemeanor courts.” Dr. Alissa Pollitz Worden invited by the Laura and John Arnold Foundation and John Jay College to present the paper at the Misdemeanor Justice Project symposium hosted by John Jay College, CUNY, April, 2017.
2017 Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Andrew L.B. Davies, Kirstin A. Morgan, Reveka V. Shteynberg. “The CAFA Project: Preliminary findings of an evaluation of public defense innovation.” Dr. Alissa Pollitz Worden invited to present the paper at the Rochester Institute of Technology, Department of Criminal Justice, February, 2017.
2015 Shteynberg, Reveka V. “A Qualitative Examination of Plea Decision Rationales.” Presented as part of the Understanding Guilty Pleas Research Coordination Network panel: “Unpacking the Plea-Bargaining Decision-Making Process for Defendants and their Attorneys.” Paper presented at the Mid-Atlantic Law & Society Association Conference, October, 2015.
2015 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. “Role of Gender in Plea Decision-Making.” Poster presented at the Research Coordination Network: Understanding Guilty Pleas Conference/Workshop, Albany, N.Y., June, 2015.
2015 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. “Role of Gender in Plea Decision Rationales.” Poster presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Annual Meeting, San Diego, C.A., March 2015.
2014 Redlich, Allison D., Shteynberg, Reveka V., and Nirider, Laura. “Did you say I could go home? The influence of implied statements of leniency on juveniles and adults.” Paper presented at the International Investigative Interviewing Research Group, Lausanne, Switzerland, June, 2014.
2014 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. “True and False Guilty Plea Decision-Making.” Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Annual Meeting, New Orleans, L.A., March, 2014.
2013 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. “The Role of Gender in Young Adult Plea Bargain Decision-Making, Competence, and Understanding.” Paper presented at the Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Boston, M.A., June, 2013.
2013 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. “Juvenile and Young Adult Plea Decision-Making.” Paper presented at the American Psychology-Law Society Annual Meeting, Portland, O.R., March, 2013.
2018 Reveka V. Shteynberg. “Courts of Pleas: Plea Bargaining Practices, Processes, and Rationales.” In Legal Services for the Indigent – New Frontiers in Law, Policy and Research on Quality Legal Representation. Paper to be presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Atlanta, G.A., November 2018.
2018 Henderson, Kelsey S. & Reveka V. Shteynberg. “Plea Decision-Making: The Role of Attorney Credibility and Trustworthiness.” In Legal Services for the Indigent – New Frontiers in Law, Policy and Research on Quality Legal Representation. Paper to be presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Atlanta, G.A., November 2018.
2018 Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Andrew L.B. Davies, Reveka V. Shteynberg, & Kirstin A. Morgan. “Providing Counsel at First Appearance: Where You Live, What It Takes, and What a Difference It Makes.” Legal Services for the Indigent – New Frontiers in Law, Policy and Research on Quality Legal Representation. Paper to be presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Atlanta, G.A., November 2018.
2017 Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Andrew L.B. Davies, Shteynberg, Reveka V., & Kirstin A. Morgan. “Counsel at First Appearance in Court: Defense Lawyers’ Role in Pretrial Justice.” In Legal Services for the Indigent – New Frontiers in Law, Policy and Research on Quality Legal Representation. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, P.A., November, 2017.
2017 Shteynberg, Reveka V. “Getting to a guilty plea: A qualitative examination of the role of internal and external factors in plea negotiations.” In Legal Services for the Indigent – New Frontiers in Law, Policy and Research on Quality Legal Representation. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Philadelphia, P.A., November, 2017.
2016 Shteynberg, Reveka V. “How to play the game: Rationales underlying and shaping plea decision-making according to defendants, defense attorneys, and prosecutors.” In Legal Services for the Indigent – New Frontiers in Law, Policy and Research on Quality Legal Representation. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, New Orleans, L.A., November, 2016.
2016 Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Andrew L.B. Davies, Shteynberg, Reveka V., & Kirstin A. Morgan. “Court Reform: Why Simple Solutions Might Not Fail? – A Case Study of Implementation of Counsel at First Appearance.” In Policy Panel: Addressing Barriers to Access to Counsel in Criminal Courts. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, New Orleans, L.A., November, 2016.
2015 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Haemi Won. “‘Yes Means Yes’: Perceptions of University-Based Affirmative Consent Policies.” In Crime and Justice on Campus: Perceptions and Attitudes. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., November, 2015.
2015 Shteynberg, Reveka V. Discussant. Legal Services for the Indigent: Client Communication and Participatory Defense. In 2015 Panels on Research and Data in Legal Services for the Indigent. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., November, 2015. [Part of an 11 Panel Series].
2015 Worden, Alissa Pollitz, Andrew L.B. Davies, Reveka V. Shteynberg, & Kirstin A. Morgan. “The CAFA Project: Preliminary Findings from the Evaluation of Counsel at First Appearance.” In Legal Services for the Indigent: Early Intervention by Counsel. In 2015 Panels on Research and Data in Legal Services for the Indigent. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., November, 2015. [Part of an 11 Panel Series].
2013 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. “Factors Influencing True and False Guilty Pleas.” Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Atlanta, G.A., November, 2013.
2012 Shteynberg, Reveka V. and Allison D. Redlich. “The Role of Gender in Juvenile and Young Adult Plea Bargain Decision-Making.” In S. Maxwell (Chair), Charging and plea bargaining decisions. Paper presented at the American Society of Criminology Annual Meeting, Chicago, I.L., November, 2012.
2010 Shteynberg, Reveka V. “Gender Roles in Perceptions of Female Criminals Based on Crimes Committed.” Paper presented at the University of California, Irvine Undergraduate Research Symposium, May, 2010.