RESULTS
___________________________________________________________________________________
All results
were computed by using a Type IV sum-of-squares to modify for the missing cell
means in a 2x2x2 ANOVA.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the conditions of the first
dependent variable, case conviction. There was not a significant three way interaction
between the independent variables attorney type, if biological evidence was
collected at the crime scene or not, and crime type for the case conviction
dependent variable, F(1,501)=.002, Mse=.187, p=.963. The were no for the participants who had a private
attorney, biological evidence was found at the crime scene, and were convicted
of assault, which left the cell mean unable to be compared to another.
Upon
further analysis of the cell means, it was shown that those who had a public
attorney, had biological evidence found at the scene of the crime, and were
charged with homicide didn’t show any difference than if defendants were
charged with homicide and didn’t have biological evidence in their case
contrary to the research hypothesis. Interestingly, those who had a public
defender, didn’t have biological evidence found at the crime scene, and were
charged with assault had a significantly higher mean difference than if there
was biological evidence found.
It was
also found that those who were charged with homicide, hired a private attorney,
and didn’t have biological evidence found at the crime scene in their case had
a significantly higher mean than did those who had a public defender, had
biological evidence, and were charged with homicide, contrary to the research
hypothesis.
The
interaction between crime type versus attorney type was significant, F(1,501)=11.275, Mse=.187, p=.001, r=.148. The
interaction is descriptive of the non-significant 3-way interaction for crime
type and attorney type where public attorneys that are defending homicide cases
had significantly more convictions than those defending assault cases. In
addition, those private attorneys defending homicide cases had significantly
more convictions than those defending assault cases; this effect was larger for
private attorneys than public attorneys.
The
interaction between if biological evidence was found at the scenes of crime or
not was not significant versus crime type, F(1,501)=.480, Mse=.187, p=.489, r=.041. The
interaction is descriptive of the non-significant 3-way. Assault cases that
didn’t have any biological evidence found at the crime scenes had more
convictions than if there had been biological evidence found. Similarly,
homicide cases that didn’t have biological evidence found at crime scenes had
significantly more convictions than the cases where biological evidence was
found. This effect was larger for homicide cases than for assault cases.
The
interaction between if biological evidence was collected from the crime scenes
in each case versus attorney type was not significant, F(1,501)=.673, Mse=.187, p=.412, r=.048. The interaction is descriptive of the
non-significant 3-way. Public attorneys defending cases that did and didn’t
have any biological evidence found at the crime scenes showed no significant
mean differences in case convictions. Cases defended by private attorneys
similarly showed that there was no difference in the number of cases that ended
in convictions whether biological evidence was found at the crime scenes or
not.
The
main effect of attorney was significant, F(1,501)=11.244, Mse=.187,
p=.001, r=.148. The main effect of this pattern is misleading of the
significant interaction between attorney type and crime type. There was no
difference in the number of convictions for homicide cases whether public or
private attorneys were defending those cases, but assault cases defended by
public attorneys ended more often in convictions than when private defense
attorneys defended those cases. The main effect of attorney was also misleading
for the non-significant interaction between attorney type and if biological
evidence was found at the crime scenes or not. Those cases that didn’t have
biological evidence found at the crime scenes didn’t show a significant difference
in the number of convictions whether it was a public or private attorney
defending the case. When public attorneys defended cases that did have
biological evidence found at the crime scenes, there were significantly more
convictions than when a private attorney defended this type of case.
The
main effect of biological evidence was also significant, F(1,501)=7.908, Mse=.187, p=.005, r=.125. The main
effect was misleading of the non-significant interaction of attorney type and
if biological evidence was found at the crime scene or not. There was no
significant difference in the number of convictions between if those cases had
biological evidence found at the crime scene or not if public attorneys were
defending the cases. Similarly, there was also no significant difference in the
number of convictions between if those cases had biological evidence found at
the crime scene or not when private attorneys defended the case. The main
effect was descriptive of the interaction between crime type and whether biological
evidence was found at the crime scene or not. Assault cases that didn’t have
any biological evidence found at the crime scenes ended in convictions
significantly more than did those cases that did have biological evidence
collected at crime scenes. Similarly, homicide cases that didn’t have any
biological evidence found at the crime scenes also ended in convictions
significantly more than did those cases that did have biological evidence
collected at crime scenes. This effect was greater for assault cases than
homicide cases.
The
main effect of crime type was significant, F(1,501)=56.767, Mse=.187, p=<.001, r=.319. The
main effect was descriptive of the interaction between crime type and if
biological evidence was found at the scene of the crime or not. Homicide cases
ended in convictions significantly more than assault cases when biological
evidence wasn’t found at the crime scenes. Similarly, homicide cases also ended
in convictions significantly more than assault cases when biological evidence was
found at the crime scenes. This effect was larger for those cases that had
biological evidence found at the scene of the crime versus not finding this
type of evidence. The main effect was also descriptive of the interaction
between crime type and attorney type. Homicide cases significantly ended in
convictions more often than assault cases when public attorneys defended the
case. Furthermore, homicide cases also significantly ended in convictions more
often than assault cases when private attorneys defended the case. This effect
was larger for those cases that were defended by private attorneys.
Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics for the conditions for the
second dependent variable, sentence length. There was no 3-way
computed since there were missing cell means. There was no data to compare the
conditions of private attorneys defending assault cases that had biological
evidence collected at the crime scene, versus a private attorney defending a
homicide case that had biological evidence collected at the crime scene.
The
interaction of crime type versus attorney type was not significant, F(1,288)=.824, Mse=77,470.983, p=.365, r=.053. This
interaction is descriptive of public attorneys defending homicide cases
receiving significantly longer sentence lengths than assault cases. In
addition, private attorneys defending homicide cases also received
significantly longer sentence lengths then assault cases. This effect was
larger for private attorneys than for public attorneys.
The
interaction between crime type and if biological evidence was found at the
scenes of crime or not was not significant, F(1,288)=2.145, Mse=77,470.983, p=.144, r=.086. This
interaction is descriptive for assault cases that didn’t have significant mean
differences in sentence lengths for the cases either did or didn’t find
biological evidence. For homicide cases, those that had biological evidence
found at crime scenes had greater sentence lengths than did the cases that
didn’t find any evidence.
This
interaction was between attorney type and if biological evidence was collected
from the crime scenes in each case or not, was not significant, F(1,288)=.673, Mse=77,470.983, p=.123, r=.048. This
interaction was descriptive when there was a significant difference in mean
sentence lengths for cases defended by a public attorney where biological
evidence was found at the crime scenes had higher sentence lengths. In
addition, cases defended by private attorneys also had higher sentences lengths
in the cases that had biological evidence found at the crime scenes versus
those that didn’t have any biological evidence found. This effect was bigger
for private attorneys than for public attorneys.
The
main effect of attorney is not significant, F(1,288)=.061, Mse=77,470.983, p=.804, r=.015. The main
effect is descriptive of the significant interaction between attorney type and
crime type, where there were no differences in the means between public and
private attorneys defending assault cases. There were also no mean differences between
public and private attorneys defending homicide cases. The main effect is
misleading for the interaction of whether biological evidence was found at the
crime scene or not and attorney type. Here, there was a significant difference
in the means between private attorneys and public attorneys defending cases
that had biological evidence found at the crime scenes, where those cases
defended by private attorneys ended in longer sentence lengths than did those
cases defended by public attorneys. However, there was no significant
difference in sentence lengths between public and private attorneys defending
cases that didn’t have any biological evidence found.
The
main effect of evidence found is significant, F(1,288)=14.980, Mse=77,470.983, p=.<.001, r=.222. The
main effect is misleading for the interaction of biological evidence and crime
type, where there was no mean difference in sentence lengths for assault cases
and if the evidence was found or not. For homicide cases, there were longer
sentences for those cases where biological evidence was found at the scene of
the crime. The main effect is descriptive for the interaction between
biological evidence and attorney type, where for public defenders there were
significantly longer sentences for those cases in which biological evidence was
found at the crime versus those cases where it wasn’t found. In the cases that
were defended by private attorneys, there were significantly longer sentence
lengths when biological evidence was found at the scene of the crime, versus
when it wasn’t found. The effect is greater for private attorneys than for
public attorneys.
The
main effect of crime type is significant, F(1,288)=35.353, Mse=77,470.983, p=.<.001, r=.331. The
main effect of crime type was descriptive for the interaction between crime
type and attorney type. When public attorneys defended homicide cases, those
ended in significantly longer sentence lengths than when the public defenders
were working assault cases. When private attorneys defended homicide cases,
those also ended in significantly longer sentence lengths than when they
private attorneys defended assault cases. In addition, this effect was greater
for private attorneys. The main effect was also descriptive of the interaction
between crime type and whether biological evidence was found at the scene of
the crime or not. Homicide cases had significantly higher sentence lengths
versus if it was an assault case when biological evidence wasn’t found at the
crime scene. Additionally, homicide cases also had significantly higher
sentence lengths versus assault cases when biological evidence was found at the
crime scene and this effect was greater when biological evidence was found at
the crime scenes versus when it wasn’t.
§
HOME INTRO METHOD RESULTS DISCUSSION TABLE 1 FIGURES REFERENCES