Published under the constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings · Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia · SCOTUS, 1980
The access right reaches electronic court records · Courthouse News Service v. Planet · 9th Cir., 2020
CaseParity makes the public record visible — a public-records transparency report, not legal advice or a prediction.
Same charge. Wildly different outcomes by location.
Look up a criminal charge by county and see what the public record actually shows — source-checked and version-aware.
Florida · §893.13(6)(a) · Fla. Stat. · 3RD-DEG FELONY
8.2% → 47.8%
prison rate, 23 counties · 2010–2025
Each dot is a Florida county. Prison rate for this charge, 2010–2025.
Drug possession — 3rd-degree felony · Fla. Stat. § 893.13(6)(a) · Florida · 23 of 67 counties · 2010–2025 · 135,202 cases · Florida Clerk of Courts data
23 of Florida's 67 counties recorded ≥ 30 sentenced cases; the rest fall below the reporting threshold. Prison rate = share of sentenced cases resulting in state prison.
Documented outcomes from past cases — not a prediction about any case.
Numerical data does not capture the qualitative factors that go into outcomes, and judges have discretion to sentence anywhere within the range the statute allows. CaseParity is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
Step 1 of 4 — Jurisdiction
Which state?
Reports are generated from that state's public court records.
What the record shows
Variance isn’t an accusation. It’s a measurement — and Congress named it first.
The Act identified "the wide variation in sentences imposed by different judges" as the principal source of unwarranted disparity. S. Rep. 98-225
Source ↗Natural-experiment studies of random case assignment put the typical gap between two judges at about 3.9–4.9 months for similar cases.
“the right to attend criminal trials is implicit in the guarantees of the First Amendment.” 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
Source ↗Historical and legal statements above are cited for context and do not constitute an endorsement of CaseParity, its reports, or any product or service.
A note on what the data does and doesn’t show. Documented variation exists in the public record, but the data does not establish a cause. Outcomes reflect many interacting factors — offense characteristics, criminal history, plea agreements, prosecutorial charging decisions, judicial philosophy, and others not captured in structured records. Sentencing data captures what was imposed, not what was charged, offered, or declined. CaseParity shows the variation; it asserts no cause.
“Transparency isn’t a favor to any one side.”
Too harsh for some defendants. Too lenient for others. Both failures erode confidence — and both are invisible until the outcomes are laid side by side.
One charge. One courthouse. The judge assigned.
Same charge, same county — the judge you draw moves the typical sentence.
Drug possession · 720 ILCS 570/402(c) · Cook County, IL · 108 judges · sentenced 2011–2024 · 29,015 sentenced cases · CCSAO Public Domain dataset
Each dot is one judge with ≥ 30 sentenced cases; judge identities are withheld. Median = the judge's median minimum state-prison term among cases sentenced to prison. Not a causal or performance claim.
Documented outcomes from past cases — not a prediction about any case.
Numerical data does not capture the qualitative factors that go into outcomes, and judges have discretion to sentence anywhere within the range the statute allows. CaseParity is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
A single judge’s sentences vary about as much as judges differ from each other.
Show the data →
The variation is inside the courtroom too
The same judge’s sentences vary about as much as judges differ from each other.
Each line is one judge’s own middle 50% of prison terms for this charge; the dot is that judge’s median. Read left to right, the medians climb from 12 to 24 months — but notice each line’s height: a single judge’s range is often as wide as the gap between judges. The variation isn’t only which judge you draw; it’s inside each courtroom too.
Drug possession · 720 ILCS 570/402(c) · Cook County, IL · 86 of 108 judges · sentenced 2011–2024 · each with ≥ 20 prison sentences · CCSAO Public Domain dataset
86 of 108 judges had at least 20 prison sentences on this charge — the floor for a stable quartile range; the rest are counted, not shown. Lines are the 25th–75th percentile of each judge's prison term; tick = median. Identities withheld; not a judgment of any judge.
Documented outcomes from past cases — not a prediction about any case.
Numerical data does not capture the qualitative factors that go into outcomes, and judges have discretion to sentence anywhere within the range the statute allows. CaseParity is not a law firm and does not provide legal advice.
What a CaseParity report contains
Structured public-record data — nothing we didn’t find in the government record.
Historical outcomes
How charges like this were actually resolved in the public record — prison, jail, probation, withheld adjudication, and diversion rates, where the data supports them, for the charge and jurisdiction you select.
Sentencing patterns
Where the data supports it: sentence-length distributions, prison and jail medians, CPC scoresheet data (Florida), and trends over time.
Within-jurisdiction comparison
How outcomes for the same charge varied within one jurisdiction — by county, by courthouse (Cook), and by year. We never compare across statutes or states.
Who uses this
The record is public. Everyone the system touches deserves to see it.
See how similar charges have historically been resolved; compare outcomes within a jurisdiction.
Understand how cases like this have typically moved through the courts. Outcomes go both ways; the record shows what actually happened — not what will happen in any case.
Structured public-record outcome data that would otherwise take significant manual research.
Look up a charge for free — no signup, no person lookup.
What CaseParity does not do
This is not a technicality. It shapes every decision we make about what to build and what to leave out.
- —We do not predict any outcome. Historical patterns describe what happened. They do not determine what will happen in your case. Every case is argued by a person, heard by a different person, and resolved on its own facts.
- —We do not recommend a legal strategy. Nothing in our reports tells you how to argue a case, what motions to file, or what plea to consider. That is the practice of law.
- —We do not evaluate defenses. We do not assess whether a charge is valid, whether evidence was lawfully obtained, or whether any particular defense would succeed.
- —We do not replace a lawyer. If you are facing criminal charges, you need an attorney. CaseParity is a research tool, not a substitute for legal representation.
- —We do not take a position on guilt or innocence. We describe the public record of what happened in court. We do not characterize defendants, victims, or outcomes beyond what the record shows.
Why transparency
“We cannot all sit in courtrooms all the time.”
CaseParity uses data to shine a light on what is not humanly possible to observe in person — grounded in the constitutional right of access to criminal proceedings (Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia).
The Court built that principle into a two-part test in Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982); the First Amendment scholar Stephen Wermiel calls Richmond Newspapers “the first decision in which the Supreme Court deemed that the public had some First Amendment right to access government information.” The constitutional case ›
Historical/legal statements cited for context — not an endorsement of CaseParity.
We collect the records from named government sources, anonymize them, and structure them — charge, jurisdiction, outcome. The same record serves courts, prosecutors, victims, and the public alike. Like cases should be treated alike.
The data is the product
Named government sources — at a breadth that makes the comparison real.
We publish where the data exists in accessible form and where statutes permit — and we’re transparent about where it doesn’t. Don’t see your state? Tell your legislators to make it available ›
Access
Pay per report, or subscribe for active practice.
Attorney Pro
Subscription plan for licensed, bar-verified attorneys. Includes individual reports during the subscription period.
Reports are included in the attorney subscription. Access one attorney-tier Public Records Transparency Report for each charge, county, and case date in your subscription period.
Request accessAttorney single report
Try a single report before you subscribe. One attorney-tier Public Records Transparency Report for a charge, county, and case date — no subscription required. For bar-verified attorneys.
Try a single reportFull details and billing terms on the pricing page ›
The record is public.
We make it visible.
What you do with that information — at the ballot box, in a courtroom, in a newsroom, or in a conversation — is yours.