The role of evidentiary weight in judicial sentencing determinations

The type and quantity of evidence in a case is a critical factor for deciding guilt, but should have little or no influence on the sentencing determinations of judges post conviction; this is because case evidence goes to guilt decisions by triers of fact, whereas sentences are imposed upon those already convicted. This dissertation examines the extralegal influence of evidentiary type and quantity on post conviction sentencing decisions using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative results demonstrate that violent felony trial cases with forensic evidence, and those cases with more varied pieces of physical evidence, result in longer custodial sentences for convicted defendants, whereas the presence of eyewitnesses fails to influence sentencing punitiveness. Qualitative interviews of 41 state court sentencing judges provide explanations for these relationships. The findings show that judges perceive cases with forensic evidence to be more objective and reliable than non-scientific evidence. While they appreciate the human quality of witness testimony, inherent credibility and reliability concerns result in decreased perceptions of evidentiary strength. Further, additional pieces of evidence corroborate other case evidence and improve perceptions of evidentiary weight. Thus, cases with more evidence and cases with forensic evidence increase judicial confidence levels in guilt. Finally, analyses utilizing a series of vignettes to evaluate sentencing rationales, as well as direct queries, reveal that judges impose longer sentences when their perceptions of evidentiary strength are highest because they are more confident in the guilt of the defendant.Ph.D.Includes bibliographical referencesby Esther Ni