The Role of Communication in Plea Bargaining and Plea Decision-Making

Mary Catlin

Advisor: Allison D. Redlich, PhD, Department of Criminology, Law and Society

Committee Members: David B. Wilson, Robert Norris, Kyle C. Scherr

Online Location, #Online
July 01, 2025, 10:00 AM to 12:00 PM

Abstract:

In the U.S., almost all criminal convictions are resolved via guilty pleas (Devers, 2011), and almost all (felony-level) defendants plead guilty with the assistance of defense attorneys (Harlow, 2000). Despite these two facts, scant research has addressed the role that defense attorneys play in defendants’ decisions to plead guilty. One potential key influence defense attorneys have is control over the information available to defendants regarding their plea decisions. In fact, defense attorneys are ostensibly the primary—or only—source of information that a defendant has about their case (Henderson, 2019); which will impact defendants’ plea decisions (e.g., Luna & Redlich, 2020). Yet, there is a significant gap in the literature regarding the role defense attorneys play in the information that is communicated to defendants and the ultimate impact that communication has on plea decisions and plea comprehension.

This dissertation had three objectives. Objective 1: To investigate how the motivation of a defense attorney (i.e., allegiance to their client or to the prosecutor) may influence the information defense attorneys seek out and provide to defendants; Objective 2: To investigate how the “telephone” game affects the exchange of information from prosecutors to defense attorneys to defendants; and Objective 3: To investigate how the communication of plea offers impacts defendant decision-making and perceptions of voluntariness and understanding.

Study 1 (Objective 1) used an experimental discovery paradigm (Bushway et al., 2014; Redlich et al., 2016) to test the influence of defense attorney motivation on the information defense attorneys seek and, subsequently, communicate to a defendant when discussing plea offers. Findings suggest that the motivation to align with the prosecutor can lead defense attorneys to open significantly fewer discovery files and self-report that they communicate less information to a hypothetical client. However, Study 1 found no differences in actual communication behavior by motivation condition.

Study 2 (Objectives 1, 2, and 3) used an experimental hypothetical plea negotiation with participant defense attorneys and defendants, and a confederate-prosecutor (Luna, 2023) to test the influence of the plea “telephone” game and defense attorney allegiance on the communication of a plea offer and the ultimate plea decision. The “telephone” game condition manipulated the presence/absence of the defendant. Unlike in Study 1, Study 2 found no impact of defense attorney motivation on plea communication, plea recommendation, or plea decisions. That said, defense attorney-participants self-reported that they shared significantly less information with the defendant-participants when the defendant-participants were present for the prosecutor’s plea offer. Yet, defense attorney motivation and the telephone game had no significant effect on defendant-participants’ ultimate plea decision, though defendant-participants perceived their plea decision as less voluntary when they were not present for the prosecutor’s plea offer.

This research is a novel attempt to understand (1) the underlying mechanisms driving defense attorneys’ communication with defendants and (2) the impact the communication of a plea offer has on plea decision-making—particularly notable because there is a dearth of research on plea negotiations, generally. By addressing these issues, this dissertation can offer a framework for future researchers to explore other factors that may impact the way a plea offer is communicated to defendants. Further, the findings from this research may have direct applications for evidence-based, plea negotiation policies. For example, the American Bar Association (2023) released a task force report on plea negotiations in which 14 principles were outlined for plea negotiations. Of these, Principle 6 and Principle 9 are most relevant to this dissertation as they concern competent counsel and discovery, respectively. The task force recommends that defense attorneys have adequate time to investigate their client’s case and that clients, in turn, have adequate time to review all available discovery material at the time of the plea offer. Yet, the task force does not offer any suggestions on how counsel should communicate with their clients, which could have repercussions for defendants’ plea decisions. Researchers and advocates often call for a closer examination of what it means to give a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary plea, especially given the potential for innocent individuals to plead guilty (Redlich, 2016; National Registry of Exonerations, 2023) and the concern that, without the protection of trial safeguards, defendants may not fully comprehend or appreciate the decision they are making (e.g., Redlich et al., 2017). This dissertation offers possible avenues to improve transparency in plea negotiations, which can inform recommendations for defense attorneys.