审判定罪后复核:上诉法院何时纠正检控不当行为?

IF 1.8 2区 社会学 Q2 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY Crime & Delinquency Pub Date : 2022-03-30 DOI:10.1177/00111287221084288
Heather L. Scheuerman, E. Griffiths, Daniel S. Medwed
{"title":"审判定罪后复核:上诉法院何时纠正检控不当行为?","authors":"Heather L. Scheuerman, E. Griffiths, Daniel S. Medwed","doi":"10.1177/00111287221084288","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Appellate courts sometimes provide relief in cases where prosecutors engage in certain actions, either free from scrutiny during investigation (backstage) or under judicial oversight during litigation (front-stage), that go beyond their authority and the law. Yet little is known about how the nature and types of prosecutorial misconduct recognized by appellate courts systematically affect their decisions to provide relief. Using data from the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, we analyze 150 appellate court cases between 2010 and 2015 in which prosecutorial misconduct is substantiated by the courts. We find that higher courts are more likely to correct for cases involving multiple types of misconduct and for cases in which the misconduct occurs “backstage,” outside of judicial oversight, rather than during litigation.","PeriodicalId":51406,"journal":{"name":"Crime & Delinquency","volume":"51 1","pages":"2846 - 2873"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Post-Conviction Review on Trial: When do Appellate Courts Correct for Prosecutorial Misconduct?\",\"authors\":\"Heather L. Scheuerman, E. Griffiths, Daniel S. Medwed\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/00111287221084288\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Appellate courts sometimes provide relief in cases where prosecutors engage in certain actions, either free from scrutiny during investigation (backstage) or under judicial oversight during litigation (front-stage), that go beyond their authority and the law. Yet little is known about how the nature and types of prosecutorial misconduct recognized by appellate courts systematically affect their decisions to provide relief. Using data from the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, we analyze 150 appellate court cases between 2010 and 2015 in which prosecutorial misconduct is substantiated by the courts. We find that higher courts are more likely to correct for cases involving multiple types of misconduct and for cases in which the misconduct occurs “backstage,” outside of judicial oversight, rather than during litigation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51406,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Crime & Delinquency\",\"volume\":\"51 1\",\"pages\":\"2846 - 2873\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Crime & Delinquency\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221084288\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Crime & Delinquency","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00111287221084288","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

上诉法院有时会在检察官从事某些行为的情况下提供救济,这些行为要么在调查期间不受审查(后台),要么在诉讼期间受到司法监督(前台),超出了他们的权力和法律。然而,上诉法院承认的检察官不当行为的性质和类型如何系统地影响它们提供救济的决定,人们知之甚少。利用检察官廉正中心的数据,我们分析了2010年至2015年间法院证实检察官不当行为的150起上诉法院案件。我们发现,高等法院更有可能纠正涉及多种不当行为类型的案件,以及不当行为发生在“后台”(司法监督之外)而不是在诉讼期间的案件。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Post-Conviction Review on Trial: When do Appellate Courts Correct for Prosecutorial Misconduct?
Appellate courts sometimes provide relief in cases where prosecutors engage in certain actions, either free from scrutiny during investigation (backstage) or under judicial oversight during litigation (front-stage), that go beyond their authority and the law. Yet little is known about how the nature and types of prosecutorial misconduct recognized by appellate courts systematically affect their decisions to provide relief. Using data from the Center for Prosecutor Integrity, we analyze 150 appellate court cases between 2010 and 2015 in which prosecutorial misconduct is substantiated by the courts. We find that higher courts are more likely to correct for cases involving multiple types of misconduct and for cases in which the misconduct occurs “backstage,” outside of judicial oversight, rather than during litigation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Crime & Delinquency
Crime & Delinquency CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.50%
发文量
155
期刊介绍: Crime & Delinquency is a peer reviewed, policy-oriented journal for the scholar and professional with an interest in the field of criminology and criminal justice. The journal was developed to focus on a wide variety of issues and concerns that impact the criminal justice system.
期刊最新文献
An Evaluation of a Tailored Peer Mediation Program for Incarcerated Women in Italy Biased Bullying Victimization and Student Wellbeing: Evidence From a Coarsened Exact Matching Analysis When Pre-Release Optimism Meets Post-Release Reality: Understanding Reentry Success Through a Longitudinal Framework Assessing Pre- and Post-Release Perceptions Depictions of Firearm Violence Perpetrators and Support for Firearm Policies: An Experimental Survey Analysis of Mental Illness and Criminal Background Unpacking Unexplored Psychological Factors in Alcohol and Substance Use in Gang Members
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1