Anna D. Vaynman
Anna Vaynman is a postdoctoral fellow at the Institute for Trustworthy AI in Law & Society (TRAILS) and the George Washington University. Her research examines legal decision-making and the criminal justice system; more specifically, plea bargaining and how attorneys navigate the plea process. She has a Ph.D. in Psychology & Law from The Graduate Center of the City University of New York.
Postdoctoral Fellow, George Washington University
Area of Expertise: Criminal Justice
-
Vaynman, A. D., & Fondacaro, M. R. (2022). Prosecutorial Discretion, Justice, and Compassion: Reestablishing Balance in our Legal System. Stetson L. Rev., 52, 31.
Abstract: The criminal justice system, wherein nearly all cases are resolved through a guilty plea, is tenuously balanced on prosecutorial discretion in the context of the plea-bargaining process. This shift in the balance of power away from judges and juries is particularly troubling given the lack of formal legal safeguards afforded to defendants engaging in plea bargaining rather than going to trial. The main issue is not prosecutorial discretion per se or even overzealous prosecutors, but the lack of oversight of the plea-bargaining process and the imbalance of power itself, which threatens the legitimacy and stability of the criminal justice system. This article argues for the importance of prosecutorial discretion as a potentially valuable tool, analyzes how and why it creates potential for abuse, and provides suggestions for recreating a balance of power. Overall, the analysis shifts away from blaming the personal characteristics of overzealous prosecutors for the imbalance and focuses on systemic, forward looking administrative and legislative solutions aimed at taking plea bargaining out of the shadows. The article concludes with specific suggestions for recreating a balance of power, by addressing issues arising from unequal access to information throughout the plea-bargaining process and recentering a defendant’s constitutional rights within the justice system.
-
Roth, J. A., Vaynman, A. D., & Penrod, S. D. (2022). Why Criminal Defendants Cooperate: The Defense Attorney's Perspective. Nw. UL Rev., 117, 1351.
Abstract: Cooperation is at the heart of most complex federal criminal cases, with profound ramifications for who can be brought to justice and for the fate of those who decide to cooperate. But despite the significance of cooperation, scholars have yet to explore exactly how individuals confronted with the decision whether to pursue cooperation with prosecutors make that choice. This Article—the first empirical study of the defense experience of cooperation—begins to address that gap. The Article reports the results of a survey completed by 146 criminal defense attorneys in three federal districts: the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of Virginia, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Our study provides an entirely new and enriching perspective on the cooperation decision, building on prior theories from the cooperation and plea-bargaining literature, and providing for a more nuanced understanding of cooperation and its motivations. In several closedand open-ended responses, attorneys shared their opinions—at times remarkably consistent, at times strikingly and informatively different— about cooperation practices in their respective districts. The results of this study can be used to further explore the theoretical foundations of cooperation and plea bargaining and can be used to build experimental studies to test causal relationships that are otherwise nearly impossible to determine.
-
Vaynman, A. D. (2023). Bargaining in the shadow of the truth: How client assertion, perception of guilt, and predictive inaccuracy influence plea recommendations (Order No. 30636362). Available from Criminal Justice Database; ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (2861493384).
Abstract: Over the past few decades, the largely hidden, secretive, and widely used system of plea bargaining has caught the fervent attention of scholars. The Shadow of the Trial model has been central to much of the plea-bargaining literature, despite significant critiques about its oversimplification. The model posits that defendants and their attorneys make plea decisions based largely on the estimated probability of conviction and the severity of the sentence to which the defendant could be exposed at trial.
The model, however, assumes that all actors are rational, equally risk averse, have no competing interests, and possess high predictive accuracy. It also does not take into account the nuanced relationship between defendants and their attorneys. In two studies, we examine the foundations of the Shadow of the Trial model by providing practicing defense attorneys with case files containing evidence and asking them to predict jury outcomes and make plea recommendations. Juror verdicts from a mock trial containing the same evidence were used to measure attorneys’ accuracy. We measured attorneys’ perceptions of client guilt and asked them whether they believed their clients’ assertions of guilt or innocence. Attorneys were also asked about their perceptions of the fairness of plea bargaining. Finally, we examined how real-world constraints influenced attorneys’ judgments, perceptions, and recommendations.