Misdemeanor Waivers of Counsel

Every year millions of individuals charged with misdemeanor offenses resolved their cases without a lawyer. Despite the fact that many are constitutionally guaranteed the right to counsel, individuals often waive representation. Prior research suggests this is due to perceptions that misdemeanor charges are minor along with the lack of confidence in the public defense system. In this series of reports, the authors examine these premises, exploring factors influencing a defendant's decision to waive counsel and some of the impacts of those decisions.

Reports Authors

The study was conducted in lower criminal courts of a smaller and larger county in a Southeastern state in the United States. Using a mix of longitudinal interviews, court observations, and other data, the researchers found that court operations contain numerous constraints on a defendant's access to a robust and meaningful advisement. These barriers also inhibit defendants from fully asserting their constitutional rights. Operating under significant pressures to make quick but complex decisions, many defendants elect to waive counsel because of their anxiety surrounding appearing in court, their distrust of public defense lawyers, and myriad misconceptions about how they believe their case will proceed.

Reports

Bureaucratic Due Process & Waiving Counsel (Nov 2024)
Counsel Selection & Consequences of Delayed Representation (Feb 2025)
Why Misdemeanor Defendants Proceed without Counsel (Jan 2025)
Methodological Lessons Learned (Mar 2024)
Compounding Negative Consequences of Misdemeanor Penalties (Feb 2025)

Authors

Alisa Smith
Alisa Smith is a Professor of Legal Studies at the University of Central Florida. Her research interests include the study of the misdemeanor courts, the right to counsel, and the role of discourse in framing and maintaining power. Dr Smith has authored two previous reports examining due process and the lower criminal courts with the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, Three-Minute Justice, and Rush to Judgment. She has written two books, edited The Lower Criminal Courts with Dr. Maddan, and authored dozens of articles. The goal of her life’s work as a former public defender and academic has been to improve the criminal legal system, particularly for the indigent.
Sarah K. Stice
Sarah K. Stice is a qualitative research analyst with a research focus on law and society, language, and access to justice. Her methodological approaches include interview analysis, narrative inquiry, and critical methodologies. She holds a Specialist Degree in Language and Literacy Education from the University of Georgia. Her peer-reviewed published qualitative research currently is in the fields of teacher education and criminology.
Sean Maddan
Sean Maddan is the Director of Institutional Research and Professor of Criminal Justice in the Department of Social Sciences at the Texas A&M International University. His research areas include criminological theory, statistics, research methods, court processing, and the efficacy of sex offender registration and notification laws. Dr. Maddan has authored dozens of articles in many outlets, including Justice Quarterly, Crime and Delinquency, Journal of Criminal Justice, and the American Journal of Criminal Justice. Dr. Maddan has also authored/co-authored seven books. His book on statistics is in its fifth edition, and his book on sex offenders is in its second edition.
Amanda Izes