Pay to Play? Campaign Finance and the Incentive Gap in the Sixth Amendment\u27s Right to Counsel

For nearly 60 years, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees felony defendants the right to counsel, regardless of their ability to pay. Yet nearly all criminal procedure scholars agree that indigent defense as practiced today falls far short of its initial promise. These scholars frequently cite a lack of political support, insufficient public funding, and a failure to address instances of inadequate legal representation, among other things, as causes for the underlying systemic dysfunction.We contend that these conventional critiques are incomplete. Rather, indigent defense systems often fail due to poor design: they do not align publicly funded defense attorneys with their clients’ best interests. This is particularly true when courts appoint private attorneys to represent indigent defendants for a fee, as is done in hundreds of jurisdictions across the United States. We explain how such assignment systems create an “incentive gap” that financially motivates defense attorneys to maximize their caseloads but minimize their efforts.We then show how campaign finance exacerbates this problem. Specifically, we provide empirical evidence that elected trial court judges and criminal defense attorneys regularly engage in “pay to play,” where judges appoint attorneys who donate to their campaigns as counsel for indigent defendants. We find trial judges routinely accept such donations, often as apparent “entry fees” from attorneys who have just become eligible for appointments. These judges, in turn, typically award their donors more than double the cases they award to non-donors, with the average donor attorney earning greater than a 27-fold return on her donation. Indeed, we find indigent defense appointments can be surprisingly lucrative, with many donor attorneys earning tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars across the hundreds of cases assigned to them by their donee judges.Worse, this apparent quid pro quo between judges and defense attorneys appears to directly harm defendants. We find that defense attorneys who donate to a judge are, if anything, less successful than non-donor attorneys in attaining charge reductions, dismissals, and acquittals, or avoiding prison sentences. We contend donor attorneys might underperform simply because they take on so many more cases from their donee judges, and hence spend less time on each matter.Our study is the first empirical analysis of how campaign finance distorts criminal trial court decision-making. While our data are from Harris County (Houston), Texas—the nation’s third most populous county—we show that pay to play is probably endemic across that state. Indeed, similar problems likely affect millions of Americans, as trial judges who control indigent defense assignments in many other states—including California, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, among others—accept attorney donations to fund their electoral campaigns. Unless substantial reforms are made to address the corrosive influence of campaign finance on criminal defense, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel will continue to ring hollow for millions of indigent defendants

Pay to Play? Campaign Finance and the Incentive Gap in the Sixth Amendment’s Right to Counsel

For nearly sixty years, the U.S. Supreme Court has affirmed that the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees felony defendants the right to counsel, regardless of their ability to pay. Yet nearly all criminal procedure scholars agree that indigent defense as practiced today falls far short of its initial promise. These scholars frequently cite a lack of political support, insufficient public funding, and a failure to address instances of inadequate legal representation, among other things, as causes for the underlying systemic dysfunction. This Article contends that these conventional critiques are incomplete. Rather, indigent defense systems often fail due to poor design, as they do not align publicly funded defense attorneys with their clients’ best interests. This is particularly true when courts appoint private attorneys to represent indigent defendants for a fee, as is done in hundreds of jurisdictions across the United States. These assignment systems create an “incentive gap” that financially motivates defense attorneys to maximize their caseloads but minimize their efforts. The Article then shows how campaign finance exacerbates this problem. Specifically, we provide empirical evidence that elected trial court judges regularly appoint attorneys who donate to their campaigns as counsel for indigent defendants—a system we call “judicial pay to play.” We find trial judges routinely accept such donations, often as apparent “entry fees” from attorneys who have just become eligible for appointments. These judges, in turn, typically award their donors more than double the cases they award to non-donors, with the average donor attorney earning greater than a twenty-seven-fold return on her donation. Indeed, we find indigent defense appointments can be surprisingly lucrative. Many donor attorneys earn tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars across the hundreds of cases assigned to them by their donee judges. Worse yet, this apparent quid pro quo between judges and defense attorneys may directly harm defendants. We find that defense attorneys who donate to a judge are, if anything, less successful than non-donor attorneys in attaining charge reductions, dismissals, and acquittals, or avoiding prison sentences. We contend donor attorneys might underperform simply because they take on so many more cases from their donee judges, and hence spend less time on each matter. Our study is the first empirical analysis of how campaign finance distorts criminal trial court decisionmaking. Though our data is limited to Harris County (Houston), Texas—the nation’s third most populous county—we show that pay to play is probably endemic across that state. Indeed, similar problems likely affect millions of Americans, as trial judges who control indigent defense assignments in many other states—including California, Georgia, Maryland, Missouri, North Carolina, and Ohio, among others—accept attorney donations to fund their electoral campaigns. Unless substantial reforms are made to address the corrosive influence of campaign finance on criminal defense, the Sixth Amendment’s right to counsel will continue to ring hollow for millions of indigent defendants

Mitigating the Security Intention-Behavior Gap: The Moderating Role of Required Effort on the Intention-Behavior Relationship

Although users often express strong positive intentions to follow security policies, these positive intentions fail to consistently translate to behavior. In a security setting, the inconsistency between intentions and behavior—termed the intention-behavior gap—is particularly troublesome, as a single failure to enact positive security intentions may make a system vulnerable. We address a need in security compliance literature to better understand the intention-behavior gap by explaining how an omnipresent competing intention—the user’s desire to minimize required effort—negatively moderates the relationship between positive intentions and actual security behavior. Moreover, we posit that this moderating effect is not accounted for in extant theories used to explain behavioral information security, introducing an opportunity to broadly impact information security research to more consistently predict behavior. In three experiments, we found that high levels of required effort negatively moderated users’ intentions to follow security policies. Controlling for this moderating effect substantially increased the explained variance in security policy compliance. The results suggest that security researchers should be cognizant of the existence of competing intentions, such as the desire to minimize required effort, which may moderate the security intention-behavior relationship. Otherwise, such competing intentions may cause unexpected inconsistencies between users’ intentions to behave securely and their actual security behavior

Microinvertebrates in CELSS Hydroponic Rhizosphere: Experimental Invasion as a Test of Community Stability and a Test of a Method to Measure Bacterivory

This report consists of two separate draft manuscripts, each prepared for submittal to a peer-reviewed journal after Kennedy Space Center (KSC) colleague editorial review and final revision. References for the two papers have been combined in this report. The two manuscripts are: (1) Experimental invasion of aquatic rhizosphere habitat and invertebrate communities, and (2) Lysozyme analysis is neither protistan- or bacteriore-specific

Design Principles for Special Purpose, Embodied, Conversational Intelligence with Environmental Sensors (SPECIES) Agents

As information systems increase their ability to gather and analyze data from the natural environment and as computational power increases, the next generation of human-computer interfaces will be able to facilitate more lifelike and natural interactions with humans. This can be accomplished by using sensors to non-invasively gather information from the user, using artificial intelligence to interpret this information to perceive users’ emotional and cognitive states, and using customized interfaces and responses based on embodied-conversational-agent (avatar) technology to respond to the user. We refer to this novel and unique class of intelligent agents as Special Purpose Embodied Conversational Intelligence with Environmental Sensors (SPECIES) agents. In this paper, we build on interpersonal communication theory to specify four essential design principles of all SPECIES agents. We also share findings of initial research that demonstrates how SPECIES agents can be deployed to augment human tasks. Results of this paper organize future research efforts in collectively studying and creating more robust, influential, and intelligent SPECIES agents

Population Cancer Risks Associated with Coal Mining: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: Coal is produced across 25 states and provides 42% of US energy. With production expected to increase 7.6% by 2035, proximate populations remain at risk of exposure to carcinogenic coal products such as silica dust and organic compounds. It is unclear if population exposure is associated with increased risk, or even which cancers have been studied in this regard. METHODS: We performed a systematic review of English-language manuscripts published since 1980 to determine if coal mining exposure was associated with increased cancer risk (incidence and mortality). RESULTS: Of 34 studies identified, 27 studied coal mining as an occupational exposure (coal miner cohort or as a retrospective risk factor) but only seven explored health effects in surrounding populations. Overall, risk assessments were reported for 20 cancer site categories, but their results and frequency varied considerably. Incidence and mortality risk assessments were: negative (no increase) for 12 sites; positive for 1 site; and discordant for 7 sites (e.g. lung, gastric). However, 10 sites had only a single study reporting incidence risk (4 sites had none), and 11 sites had only a single study reporting mortality risk (2 sites had none). The ecological study data were particularly meager, reporting assessments for only 9 sites. While mortality assessments were reported for each, 6 had only a single report and only 2 sites had reported incidence assessments. CONCLUSIONS: The reported assessments are too meager, and at times contradictory, to make definitive conclusions about population cancer risk due to coal mining. However, the preponderance of this and other data support many of Hill\u27s criteria for causation. The paucity of data regarding population exposure and risk, the widespread geographical extent of coal mining activity, and the continuing importance of coal for US energy, warrant further studies of population exposure and risk

Sleight of Hand: Identifying Concealed Information by Monitoring Mouse-Cursor Movements

Organizational members who conceal information about adverse behaviors present a substantial risk to that organization. Yet the task of identifying who is concealing information is extremely difficult, expensive, error-prone, and time-consuming. We propose a unique methodology for identifying concealed information: measuring people’s mouse-cursor movements in online screening questionnaires. We theoretically explain how mouse-cursor movements captured during a screening questionnaire differ between people concealing information and truth tellers. We empirically evaluate our hypotheses using an experiment during which people conceal information about a questionable act. While people completed the screening questionnaire, we simultaneously collected mouse-cursor movements and electrodermal activity—the primary sensor used for polygraph examinations—as an additional validation of our methodology. We found that mouse-cursor movements can significantly differentiate between people concealing information and people telling the truth. Mouse-cursor movements can also differentiate between people concealing information and truth tellers on a broader set of comparisons relative to electrodermal activity. Both mouse-cursor movements and electrodermal activity have the potential to identify concealed information, yet mouse-cursor movements yielded significantly fewer false positives. Our results demonstrate that analyzing mouse-cursor movements has promise for identifying concealed information. This methodology can be automated and deployed online for mass screening of individuals in a natural setting without the need for human facilitators. Our approach further demonstrates that mouse-cursor movements can provide insight into the cognitive state of computer users

Presearch Data Conditioning in the Kepler Science Operations Center Pipeline

We describe the Presearch Data Conditioning (PDC) software component and its context in the Kepler Science Operations Center (SOC) pipeline. The primary tasks of this component are to correct systematic and other errors, remove excess flux due to aperture crowding, and condition the raw flux light curves for over 160,000 long cadence (~thirty minute) and 512 short cadence (~one minute) targets across the focal plane array. Long cadence corrected flux light curves are subjected to a transiting planet search in a subsequent pipeline module. We discuss the science algorithms for long and short cadence PDC: identification and correction of unexplained (i.e., unrelated to known anomalies) discontinuities; systematic error correction; and excess flux removal. We discuss the propagation of uncertainties from raw to corrected flux. Finally, we present examples of raw and corrected flux time series for flight data to illustrate PDC performance. Corrected flux light curves produced by PDC are exported to the Multi-mission Archive at Space Telescope [Science Institute] (MAST) and will be made available to the general public in accordance with the NASA/Kepler data release policy

Comparison of diets collected from esophageally fistulated cows to forage quality estimated from fecal analysis

Differences in forage quality (crude protein and energy) were analyzed between esophageally fistulated diets, analysis of fecal samples with Nutrition Balance Analyzer (NUTBAL) analysis, and analysis of handclipped forage samples. On upland range sites, hand- clipped samples provided forage quality estimates that were closer to esophageally fistulated diets than samples analyzed with the NUTBAL analysis. Aft er one year of data collection, it appears that there may be some inconstancies with the NUTBAL analysis for estimates on rangeland forage quality in the Nebraska Sandhills. More data is needed to verify these results; however, making management supplementations decisions solely on the NUTBAL analysis may not always be accurate on Sandhills rangeland