Joinder of Criminal Offenses - A Review of the Legal and Psychological Literature

• NCJ Number: 100298
• Journal: Law and Human Behavior Volume: 9 Issue: 4 Dated: (December 1985) Pages: 339-353
• Author(s): K S Bordens; I A Horowitz
• Date Published: 1985
• Length: 15 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Literature Review
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: This paper is an elaboration of one presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chicago, March 1984.

Annotation

This review examines the psychological and legal literature on the joinder of offenses, including court decisions and their implications.

Abstract

While cognizant of possible prejudicial effects of joinder, the courts feel that equity is restored by meting out concurrent sentences. Trial courts are hesitant to grant motions to sever, and appellate courts rarely challenge trial court discretionary decisions except where the practice leads to flagrant prejudice. Jury decisionmaking research has clearly shown that the practice of joinder is prejudicial toward the defendant, although the magnitude of the effect is often small. Defendants are more likely to be convicted in joined compared to severed trials. The pattern across studies indicates that the joinder effect is robust. Sources of prejudice may include confusion of evidence among charges, inferences about the defendant's character, and the association of accumulating evidence with guilt. Further research into the loci of the effect and potential remedies is recommended. 28 references.