THE COURTROOM WORK GROUP


Courts are comprised of many individuals and
groups
These groups have highly interdependent
roles

Consists of judges, prosecutors, and defense
attorneys

Regular and ongoing relationships

Variety of interaction times and places

Different roles allow for efficient case processing

Issue arrest and search warrants

Make probable cause determinations

Grant or deny bail

Preside over initial appearances and hearings

Rule on pretrial motions

Preside over trial

Legal advisors to law enforcement

Represent the State in criminal cases

Participate in jury selection

Give opening and closing arguments

Call State witnesses and cross-examine defense witnesses

May be privately retained or appointed

Ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected

Defend their client throughout the criminal proceedings

Law Clerks

Court Clerks and Administrators

Jurors

Witnesses

Police Officers

News Media

Exhibit authority relationships

Display influence relationships

Held together by common goals

Have specialized roles

Use a variety of work techniques

Engage in a variety of tasks

Have different degrees of stability and familiarity

Core Members






Judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys
Frequent participation in courtroom processes
Common demographic characteristics
Professional backgrounds
Common perspective on court operations
Regular Members
 Law enforcement, expert witnesses, news media
 Frequent, but not daily courtroom participation

Occasional Participants
 Jurors, crime victims, litigants
 Infrequent courtroom participation
 Diverse training, values, and orientations



Judges are the rulers of the courts
Reflected in the judge’s attire, courtroom design, and
the way they are addressed
Limits on a judge’s authority





Attorneys’ discretion
Budgetary control
Jurisdiction
Sentencing guidelines
Appeals


All work group members influence and are
influenced by other members
Different bases of power and areas of knowledge
 Judges have formal authority and direct the actions of the court
 Prosecutors have superior case knowledge and discretion about what
goes to trial
 Defense attorneys may interview witnesses, obtain evidence through
discovery, and file pretrial motions

Doing Justice

Maintaining Group Cohesion

Disposing of the Case Load

Reducing Uncertainty

Judges
 Respond to motions throughout trial
 Demonstrate impartiality

Prosecuting Attorneys
 Represent the State and its interests
 Must not obstruct the efforts of the defense, but there is no
obligation to aid the defense

Defense Attorneys
 Represent the defendant’s interests to the greatest degree
possible


Knowledge gives group members different
types of power and influence
Interaction techniques
 Unilateral decisions
 Adversarial proceedings
 Negotiations

Initial Appearance

Preliminary Hearing

Grand Jury Indictment or Criminal Information

Arraignment

Pretrial Motions

Trial Procedures

Stability creates close and long-term relationships

Small groups lead to closer interactions

Results of greater familiarity




Better negotiations
Less reliance on formalities
More utilization of informal arrangements
Creates the foundation for cooperative relationships

Judges
 Develop relationships with attorneys
 Exert influence over cases and plea bargaining

Prosecutors
 Operate from a position of power
 Dynamic tension with judges and defense attorneys

Defense Attorneys
 Must “sell” a deal to their client
 May stall the case progress


Outside factors may alter group dynamics
and interactions
Changes in sentencing laws
 California’s “Three Strikes Law”
 Changed the relationships of courtroom work group
members
 Disrupted work efficiency
 Made case prediction difficult