51³Ô¹ÏÍø

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, they are referred to using the pseudonyms Bluebonnet, Cactus, Longhorn, and Tumbleweed.

Researchers collected data on a total of 2,618 closed cases across the four counties. Those cases were first identified from lists of cases closed provided by each County Court Clerk’s office. Totals from each county are shown in the table below.

 

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, cases were excluded either because they were missing key documentation, or because the magistration procedures in the case were substantially different to the ones described. Exact numbers of cases excluded, and the reasons for exclusion, can be found below each diagram.

Exclusion for missing documentation

Because the Center’s diagrams track representation status in cases over time, any case that was missing relevant information had to be excluded. These included cases where records did not indicate whether the defendant requested counsel, cases where the date of magistration was missing, and cases where no magistration record was discovered at all.

Exclusion for inconsistent procedures

Researchers spoke with county officials and reviewed records in each county to understand magistration procedures and procedures for appointing counsel. Often, those procedures had evolved over time, and researchers sought to identify the scope and timing of such changes.

Based on these conversations, Center researchers focused the diagrams on cases where magistration procedures and processes for appointing counsel were known to be consistent. Cases were excluded, for example, when counties switched to using an electronic system for applications instead of paper forms, when judges who lacked appointing authority stepped in to magistrate in the absence of judges who had it, and where counties experimented temporarily with different approaches to appointing counsel.