Apparent judicial racial bias can stem from prosecutors’ bias, not judges’ own.

Evidence

The criminal justice process is lengthy, and it is multilayered. There are a number of key actors—prosecutors, criminal defense attorneys, among others—of which judges are just one. The ultimate decisions made by judges embody the decisions made by these other actors before the case has arrived in front of the judge. This realization poses a challenge to the investigation of judicial bias because it is important to filter out various confounding factors to pinpoint the sources of any potential bias, if it exists, and to design effective public policy to eliminate the bias. Thus, an overarching examination of judicial bias would investigate the actions/decisions of each actor in the judicial system separately, while accounting for the fact that one actor’s decision may impact the decision of another actor, and that these decisions may be interdependent. For example, judges’ decisions may reveal racial bias even when judges themselves are racially unbiased, if it is the case that prosecutors show bias. Alternatively, racially unbiased prosecutors may adjust their behavior in how they handle cases based on the race of the defendant if they recognize that judges are racially biased. Thus, analyses of judicial decision-making need to be statistically sophisticated to account for observable and unobservable factors that determine the judicial decisions under investigation. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 729 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

There are still other, even more subtle, complications in the analysis of judicial decisions that may confound the estimated impact of race, ethnicity, and gender on judicial outcomes. For example, assume that prosecutors are more aggressive inside the courtroom during trials involving minority defendants, and they are milder and more accommodating against White defendants. If this is the case, the conviction and sentencing decisions of a judge may resemble favoritism toward White defendants, but this would be misleading. The disparate outcomes would be reflection of prosecutors’ actions in the courtroom. This particular potential confounding can be controlled for by including in the model (Equation 1) indicator variables for individual prosecutors who were involved in each case (prosecutor fixed effects), although in most publicly available data sets such information about prosecutors is not recorded. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 739 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Jury trial safeguards defendants against corrupt prosecutors and biased judges — G. Alan Tarr, Judicial Process and Judicial…, 1292; Systematic assignment to judges alone can produce racial disparities without any bias.; Judges’ case outcomes can show racial bias even when judges themselves are unbiased — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 729 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Judges’ case outcomes can show racial bias even when judges themselves are unbiased #corroborates (0.95) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 729
• Judge disparities may really reflect prosecutor behavior rather than judicial bias #corroborates (0.95) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 739
• Judge behavior can falsely appear biased when prosecutors treat defendants unequally. #expands (0.92)