1. THE COURTROOM WORK GROUP
CHAPTER THREE
THE COURTROOM WORK GROUP

2. Introduction Courts are comprised of many individuals and groups
These groups have highly interdependent roles

3. The Work Group Core
Consists of judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys
Regular and ongoing relationships
Variety of interaction times and places
Different roles allow for efficient case processing

4. Judges 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

5. Prosecuting Attorneys
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

6. Defense Attorneys May be privately retained or appointed
Ensure that the defendant’s rights are protected
Defend their client throughout the criminal proceedings

7. Other Work Group Actors
Law Clerks
Court Clerks and Administrators
Jurors
Witnesses
Police Officers
News Media

8. Characteristics of the Work Group
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

9. Courtroom Work Group Core Members Regular 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

10. Authority Relationships
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

11. Influence Relationships
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

12. Common Goals Doing Justice Maintaining Group Cohesion
Disposing of the Case Load
Reducing Uncertainty

13. Specialized Roles Judges Prosecuting Attorneys Defense Attorneys
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

14. Work Techniques
Knowledge gives group members different types of power and influence
Interaction techniques
Unilateral decisions
Adversarial proceedings
Negotiations

15. Work Group Tasks Initial Appearance Preliminary Hearing
Grand Jury Indictment or Criminal Information
Arraignment
Pretrial Motions
Trial Procedures

16. Stability and Familiarity
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

17. Group Interactions Judges Prosecutors Defense Attorneys
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

18. Disruptions to Group Goals
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