Courtroom Workgroups

Courtroom Workgroups: A Closer Look On How Decisions Are Made

The criminal justice can be a quick labyrinth of dead ends and back and fourths when it comes to decision making, especially inside of the courtroom. Many times, citizens that are subject to the court system never understand what decision is made on their behalf or why. In the early days of the justice system, judges were seen as the lead actors in the court, with the ultimate decision power and ruling. In order to establish an equal and unbiased effort when it comes to sentencing and overall effect of someone’s life, courtroom workgroups were proposed. In 1977, James Eisenstein and Herbert Jacob proposed this organization inside the courtroom after observing different courts and how they function as a response to a lack of resources for public defenders, who often do not have the time to prepare for a case. The idea and concept behind the courtroom workgroup is to give the court an identity, so to speak, detailing the members of the court and their duties during and after a case has gone to trial. This paper will identify and observe the process of a courtroom workgroup and its characteristics.

A Courtroom Workgroup

A courtroom workgroup is typically comprised of a prosecutor, criminal defense attorney, and judicial officer or judge. In recent cases, especially dealing with drug cases, probation officers and other social services have made an appearance inside the workgroup. The workgroup is designed around an informal arrangement by all parties involved and is build on four core competencies, speed, pragmatic cynicism, collegiality, and secrecy. From a psychological standpoint, the Pragmatic Thinking Theory explains that most leaders, especially those found inside the workgroup, deal with things sensibly and realistically that is based on practical rather than theoretical. In order to establish a common ground between parties, this type of thinking is important and very much needed. More often...