Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys

Heuman's book is fun & informative. Informative because it gives a rich and realistic account of the institutional roles and norms relevant to the world of plea bargaining. We hear what lawyers and judges really think about the plea bargaining process - plea bargaining is described in terms of economic efficiency, strategic game-playing, gambling (ie calling the other guy's bluff), social work, and even insurance adjusting. Anyone who thinks that for our criminal justice system Gideon's trumpet is the rule rather than the exception will surely realize her naivete after considering Heumann's research. The book is fun because of the candid - often profane - responses (I happen to like the image of lawyers one-upping each other in court using made up cases...). We even hear about the "lighter side" of the study as the young, awkward, and bespectacled researcher barges through the judge's entrance and into a courtroom before a standing audience, much to his embarassment.I am concerned that the research may be dated. The study may have been valuable in 1973 to contest the "Perry Mason" caricature of the criminal justice system. I would guess that law school graduates and public law students would not be so surprised by the "real world" of plea bargaining in 1998. Not only are we 25 years less naïve than the generation raised on Perry Mason, I think we tend to approach the criminal justice system with the same cynical outlook described in the research. Shows like Perry Mason, and more recently, Matlock and L.A. Law, have since been replaced by NYPD Blue, Law and Order, and Homicide Life On The Street (not to mention the nightly news). Adaptation to plea bargaining roles is surely still necessary, but I would expect that today's newcomers are not taken totally off guard as are Heumann's interviewees. As cynicism, bureaucratization, and even plea bargaining have become more commonplace in our legal, educational, and popular cultures, I would not be surprised if the same research conducted today would have different and less-revelatory results. I am more concerned about the relevance of the research in the context of contemporary public law literature. As is often the case with political science research (in sub-fields other than political theory, that is) the research itself is top-notch but the theory section (a scant six pages) is somewhat lacking. The book appears to be a welcome addition to literature on plea bargaining and an excellent case for adjusting law school curricula to the real world of criminal justice. I am less clear on the relevance of the research to political science. The book's strength is also its greatest weakness: in presenting a focused and detailed account of the goings-on behind closed doors, the research risks taking the "public" out of public law. The only justification Heumann offers for contesting the "case pressure" thesis is to make a case against the abolition of plea