Most criminal proceedings do not end with a decision in a main trial, but by termination of action. The relevant formal rules grant legal practitioners a wide scope of discretion, which is barely restricted by case law and theory. Therefore, we find strong variance in judges’ and prosecutors’ decision-making regarding the termination of proceedings.
By analyzing a data set containing offense- and working time-associated variables from Public Prosecutors in all German Higher Regional Court Districts (2004-2014) I can show that often stated work overload cannot explain this variance.
I argue that it may be linked to the fact that criminal proceedings are based on informal rules of action regarding timing, the exchange between the actors, the atmosphere of the proceedings, or the sheer existence of a defense lawyer.
The aim of this paper is to identify these informal rules of criminal procedure by conducting semi-standardized expert interviews with prosecutors, judges, and defence lawyers.
