Research Methods

 

How cases were selected for inclusion in the Center’s diagrams

Deason Center researchers collected data from misdemeanor courts in four Texas counties. To preserve the anonymity of counties, the Deason Center refers to them with the pseudonyms of Bluebonnet, Cactus, Longhorn, and Tumbleweed. 
 
Each county court clerk’s office provided the Deason Center with lists of closed cases. Drawing on those lists, researchers collected data on a total of 2,618 closed cases.  

 

County	Total cases collected	Date range of case closure
Bluebonnet	938	April 2023 to June 2023
Cactus	701	January 2021 to September 2022
Longhorn	483	January 2016 to October 2022
Tumbleweed	496	January 2016 to March 2023

 

When selecting data for inclusion on the diagrams, researchers excluded cases that were missing key documentation. They also excluded cases in which the magistration procedures were substantially different than those described.

Exclusion for missing documentation

Because the Center’s diagrams track representation statuses over time, any case in which researchers were unable to retrieve relevant information had to be excluded. For example, researchers excluded cases in which records did not indicate whether an accused person requested counsel and cases in which researchers could not find any magistration records. Researchers also excluded cases that were missing key information that could be used to verify magistration procedures (such as the date of the magistration itself).

Exclusion for inconsistent procedures

In each county, researchers spoke with county officials and reviewed county records to understand magistration procedures and procedures for appointing counsel. If those procedures had changed over time, researchers identified the scope and timing of such changes.  
 
Based on these conversations, Center researchers focused their diagrams on cases with known and consistent procedures and processes. Researchers excluded cases when, for example, counties changed from paper to electronic application systems, judges who lacked appointing authority temporarily conducted magistration, or counties experimented with different approaches to appointing counsel.  

Distinguishing appointed attorneys from retained attorneys

Researchers coded cases as ‘court-appointed’ if the attorney’s name matched the attorney name on an approved application – or on a subsequent order for substitution of appointed counsel. Researchers coded cases as ‘retained’ if the attorney’s name matched the attorney name on a ‘letter of representation’. Researchers also coded cases as ‘retained’ if other documents (such as a notice of hearing or motion) indicated a person had retained counsel. Researchers coded cases as ‘unrepresented’ if they found no evidence of representation.  

County-specific methods

Bluebonnet County: Researchers retrieved files from a single case management system in the county clerk’s office. That system collated magistration records with records from County Court proceedings.  

Cactus County: Researchers retrieved documents from the county clerk’s office and a public, online jail data portal. While county officials did not give researchers direct access to magistration records, researchers obtained needed information with the assistance of local attorneys. Without showing the records to Center researchers, attorneys looked them up one-by-one in a county magistration database and dictated key information to the researchers. Using the accused person’s name, charge, and offense date, researchers then matched the magistration data to records from the clerk’s office and the jail portal.  

Longhorn County: Researchers collected files from the Longhorn county clerk’s office. Because those files did not consistently include magistration records, Center researchers also obtained magistration records from case files held in the County Attorney’s office, and matched them using the accused person’s name and charge(s), as well as key dates in their case. Researchers also obtained a small number of magistration records from the office of the Justice of the Peace who magistrated a majority of cases in the county. 

Tumbleweed County: Researchers retrieved an initial set of records from the Tumbleweed county clerk’s office. Researchers then combined those data with documentary and database records kept in the county jail, which also housed a large number of magistration records. Researchers matched records using the accused person’s name and charge(s), as well as key dates in their case. (Researchers also inspected records in county and Justice of the Peace archives but found only duplicate information.)