By Adam Teperski, Ilya Klauzner

Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) remains a pressing public health and criminal justice issue. Concerns have been raised about police misidentification of IPV victims as offenders - particularly women - due to factors such as self-defensive violence and non-conforming victim behaviour. Misidentification can have serious consequences, including criminalisation of victims and reduced access to support services.

This study investigates whether police are more likely to charge women with IPV offences by examining whether different evidentiary thresholds are applied to male and female persons of interest (POIs) in IPV assault cases. We use a robust instrumental variables approach to compare conviction rates among ‘marginal’ defendants—those who are on the cusp of being charged or not, depending on the attending officer’s individual tendency to proceed with legal action.

The analysis draws on 52,423 IPV assault incidents reported between July 2010 and February 2023, involving 38,413 male and 14,010 female POIs. By comparing conviction rates among marginal male and female POIs, we assess whether police require less evidence to charge women. If so, this would suggest gender bias in police charging decisions and support concerns about misidentification.

Key findings

Figure 1 presents our estimates of the impact of being proceeded against on the probability of conviction by gender for marginal POIs, after controlling for case characteristics, demographics and prior offending. 

Marginal female POIs had a conviction rate of 81.7%, while marginal male POIs had a rate of 67.2%. Although this 14.5 percentage point difference suggests stronger cases against women, it was not statistically significant. 

This indicates that police officers apply similar evidentiary thresholds when deciding to charge male and female POIs in IPV assault incidents. The findings suggest no gender bias in police charging decisions among experienced officers. However, the analysis does not account for potential bias in other parts of the justice system or among less experienced officers.

• Found no difference in the court conviction rate between marginal women and men charged with IPV. This suggests that experienced police apply similar evidentiary thresholds when charging men and women in IPV assault cases. 

Study 2: The nature and extent of cross-intimate partner violence 

• Cross-IPV, where both partners face legal action, is rare but increasing—from 0.7% of IPV events in 2010–11 to 2.5% in the year to Feb 2023; cross-ADVOs also rose from 5.7% in 2016 to 13.7% in 2023. 

• Review of police cross-IPV incidents found men and women involved showed similar rates of violent behaviours and physical injury.   

• Past DFV experience in cross-IPV incidents: Men were more likely to have a longer history of perpetration, while women were likely to have experienced more prior victimisation. 

Neither study found evidence that women are mischarged in the specific circumstances considered. However, misidentification is difficult to detect in administrative records, and these findings do not rule out that misidentification occurs in individual cases or under different circumstances.  

By Kristin R Laurens, Lauren M Piltz. Linda J Graham, Emma J Carpendale. Stacy Tzoumakis. Felicity Harris.  Tyson Whitten,  Kimberlie Dean,  Melissa J Green

The aim of this study was to examine the association between out-of-school suspension from primary school and early contact with police (by approximately 14 years of age). Using data from the New South Wales Child Development Study, this study determined the prevalence and pattern of suspension (by timing, total number, total days, and reason) and police contact (any, person of interest, victim, and/or witness) among 68,121 children who attended NSW public schools during 2012 to 2015 (Years 3 to 6). Associations between suspension and police contact were analysed using a demographically matched sample that compared all 3,291 suspended children with 6,582 like non-suspended peers. Suspended children had almost quadruple the odds of police contact relative to nonsuspended children after controlling for other factors. Children with more suspensions, and suspensions for more serious reasons, had even greater likelihood of police contact, especially as a person of interest. Findings highlight a need for systemic education and interagency reform to enact effective alternatives to suspension.

By Dominic Furneaux-Bate

In 2024, the NSW Government introduced the Early Drug Diversion Initiative (EDDI), a statewide scheme designed to divert people detected with small amounts of illicit drugs away from the criminal justice system and toward a health-based response. Under EDDI, eligible individuals can receive a $400 Criminal Infringement Notice instead of being charged and attending court. The fine is waived if the individual chooses to complete a voluntary telehealth intervention.

Key findings: 

• In the first 13 months of EDDI’s operation between 29 February 2024 and 31 March 2025, 11,751 people were proceeded against by NSW Police for use/possess offences involving drugs other than cannabis. Fewer than 10 per cent of these people were issued a Criminal Infringement Notice (CIN) and diverted from court.

• Low diversion rates are largely driven by eligibility criteria, with almost three‑quarters (72%) of people found to be ineligible. Most were excluded because they had another offence at the same time or were carrying more than the “small” quantity threshold.

• Among those who were eligible, only about one in five (22%) were diverted. The likelihood of receiving a CIN was highest among people with no prior contact with the criminal justice system, those detected with ecstasy or cocaine rather than methamphetamine, and people detected at music festivals.

By The Australian Human Rights Commission'

The Commission's submission to the NSW Select Committee on Youth Justice highlights the need to move away from punitive responses to children’s offending and towards evidence‑based approaches that address underlying causes and improve outcomes for children and communities.

By The Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee

The Expanding Adult Crime, Adult Time and Taking a Strong Stance on Drugs and AntiSocial Behaviour Amendment Bill 2026 (Bill) was introduced to the Legislative Assembly on 3 March 2026 by the Honourable Laura Gerber MP, Minister for Youth Justice and Victim Support and Minister for Corrective Services and was referred to the Justice, Integrity and Community Safety Committee (committee) for consideration. The objective of the Bill is to make Queensland safer and strengthen the capability of the criminal justice system to hold perpetrators to account. This objective is achieved under the Bill by: • amending the Youth Justice Act 1992 to prescribe new Adult Crime, Adult Time offences • repealing the current Police Drug Diversion Program and introducing a new Illicit Drug Enforcement and Diversion Framework, and • introducing new and expanded police powers within prescribed Designated Business and Community Precincts. The committee received and considered the following evidence: • 188 written submissions from stakeholders • a written briefing provided by the Department of Youth Justice and Victim Support (department) on 10 March 2026 • a public hearing and public briefing in Brisbane on 27 March 2026 • a public hearing in Nambour on 30 March 2026 • a public hearing in Maryborough on 31 March 2026, and • a public hearing in Townsville on 9 April 2026. The committee is satisfied that the Bill gives sufficient regard to the rights and liberties of individuals and the institution of Parliament as required by the Legislative Standards Act 1992. The committee found that the Bill is incompatible with human rights as defined in theThe committee considered that any potential incompatibility with the human rights as expressed in the HRA and as further explained in the statement of compatibility are justified in the circumstances and necessary to achieve the purposes of the Bill. The committee made 1 recommendation, found at page vii of this report

By Ethan Bartlett, Kelly Roskam,  Kathryn Fleisher, Alex McCourt

This report focuses on evidence-based policy recommendations tailored
to Minnesota. Though Minnesota has made substantial progress in
passing policies to prevent gun violence in the state, there are still
pathways forward to better protect their individuals and communities
from firearm-related harms. We recognize that firearm policy does not
work in a vacuum. Other types of interventions, such as targeted
public health programs and investments to meet the needs of different
communities, are necessary to comprehensively address gun violence in
the state. While these recommendations are not an exhaustive list,
enacting these evidence-based policies will help to reduce the burden
of gun violence on Minnesotans. As public health practitioners, our
recommendations are for Minnesota to: Strengthen Safe Storage
Requirements Require safe storage practices for all guns, regardless
of whether or not children can access them. Expand the child access
law to cover access by those otherwise ineligible for gun possession.
Strengthen the Firearm Purchaser Licensing Process Extend the
transferee permit requirement to all firearm transfers. Add a training
requirement with a live fire element to the transferee permit
application process. Require that transferee permit applicants are
fingerprinted as part of the application process. Require a
point-of-sale background check for private sales. Strengthen Public
CarryRegulations Maintain the requirement to obtain a permit to carry
a firearm in public. Require applicants for permits to carry to submit
fingerprints. Enact place-based prohibition on firearms at locations
such as polling locations, ballot drop boxes, and protestsStrengthen
Domestic Violence Prevention Protections Prohibit firearm possession
and require firearm relinquishment by persons subject to ex parte
domestic violence protective orders. Require compliance review
hearings for subjects of domestic violence protective orders. Prohibit
the Manufacture, Sale, Transfer, and Possession of Large Capacity
Magazines Prohibit the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of
large capacity magazines (magazines containing more than 10 rounds of
ammunition). Create an Office of Gun Violence Prevention Create an
Office of Gun Violence Prevention that acts as the state clearinghouse
to address all forms of gun violence through evidence informed
policies and programs.


Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Violence Solutions, 2025. 27p.

By:  PAULA SOUMAYA DOMIT • RACHEL STOHL • NATALIE BRAMLETT ROB
HUNTER-PERKINS • ISHTIAQ KHAN

Poorly implemented controls on the end use or end user of exported
arms can contribute to the diversion of those arms. This issue brief
is intended to support States Parties to the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT)
in effectively implementing controls on the end-use/r, using end-use/r
documentation as a key tool to prevent arms diversion. This is in line
with Article 11 of the treaty and in support of the implementation of
other treaty provisions. The issue brief addresses existing discussions and good practices on end-use/r controls and how ATT States Parties use end-use/r controls,
including documentation, within their own diversion-prevention
measures. It also aims to improve understanding of underutilized
potential and to identify options that could be pursued to strengthen
control systems in order to more effectively implement the ATT’s
provisions on diversion prevention and related efforts.
This brief is intended to inform the ongoing exchange of national
implementation practices within the ATT, specifically the discussion
on national import controls, and future deliberations on intersecting
issues.

The United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), 2025. 33p.

By : Joshua Hochman

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Supreme
Court reaffirmed that laws prohibiting the carrying of firearms in
sensitive places were presumptively constitutional. Since Bruen,
several states and the District of Columbia have defended their
sensitive-place laws by analogizing to historical statutes regulating
firearms in other places, like schools and government buildings. Many
judges, scholars, and litigants appear to have assumed that only
statutescan count as evidence of the nation’s historical tradition of
firearm regulation. This Note is the first expansive account since
Bruen to challenge this assumption. It argues that courts should
consider sources of analogical precedent outside of statutory
lawmaking when applying the Court’s Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Taking public transportation as a case study, the Note surveys rules
and regulations promulgated by railroad corporations in the nineteenth
century and argues that these sources reveal a historical tradition of
regulating firearm carriage on public transportation. Bruen permits
courts to engage in more nuanced analogical reasoning when dealing
with unprecedented concerns or dramatic changes. One such change is
the shift in state capacity that has placed sites that were privately
or quasi-publicly operated before the twentieth century under public
control in the twenty-first century. As in the case of schools, which
the Court has already deemed sensitive, a substantial portion of the
nation’s transportation infrastructure in the nineteenth century was
not entirely publicly owned and operated. For this reason, courts
should consider evidence of historical firearm regulations enacted not
just by legislatures but by quasi-public or private corporations. This
case study instructs that courts and litigants can best honor Bruen’s
history-based test by considering all of the nation’s history of
firearm regulation.

Yale Law Review,  133:1676 2024

By: Colin Murphy

3D printing, a technology only a few decades old, has progressed in quality and affordability. It has moved from the realm of industrial prototype, through cutting-edge design and technology, to finally end up in the homes of hobbyists and enthusiasts. This welcome and useful process has delivered new and affordable solutions to a range of subjects and fields, and has changed the shape of manufacturing from large factories to small bespoke businesses. However, this innovation has also developed a darker side and has been adopted by those with criminal intent, including for the manufacture of firearms. While converted or backstreet guns are not a new phenomenon, the advent of 3D printing has extended the range of people able to obtain a firearm to include those with no practical skills or tools or indeed any criminal connections. In the space of little over a decade, the concept of homemade guns using 3D printing techniques has evolved from a simple yet effective one-shot pistol to a semi automatic hybrid rifle. These firearms have made their way into the hands of criminals and extremists with menacing intent. They have also featured in high-profile shootings with fatal consequences. It is important to acknowledge that this nascent method of firearm production is developing at a rapid speed. Authorities and law enforcement agencies are recognising the growing threat that these firearms pose, and are adapting their understanding, approach and expertise. In addition, legislators around the world are beginning to adapt their laws to address this emerging threat. In the EU, possession of a 3D-printed firearm is an offence, but not possession of, publicity for or distribution of digital blueprints or hard copies. IN THIS BRIEFING • Introduction • 3D printing • Craft production of privately-made firearms . • Progression of 3D printed firearms • Users of 3D printed firearms • Addressing the issue

Members' Research Service PE 775.889 – August 2025

By The Crime and Justice Institute

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the availability and
accessibility of community resources for youth; particularly those
that are justice-involved youth in Oakland County. It identifies
available resources, the various strengths and gaps across services,
programing and stakeholder collaboration, highlighting areas that need
development and enhancement. In addition, this report outlines
stakeholders’ and youth’s goals for Oakland County’s resource
inventory and offers research in best practices for coordinating and
delivering supports for youth and families and offers strategies for
effective and sustainable improvements.

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2025. 26p.

By: Matthew Hall, Jacob S. Rugh, Hao Liang,

Keywords
Immigration Enforcement, Deportation, Unauthorized Migration,
Citizenship, Residential Segregation, Residential Mobility
The shift of immigration enforcement to local jurisdictions has
intensified localized patterns of anti-immigrant sentiment, enabling
the system of mass deportation to expand at an unprecedented scale.
This study examines the effects of 287 (g) agreements, which empower
local law enforcement to enforce immigration laws, on Latino
residential segregation. Using a quasi-experimental design that
compares counties implementing 287 (g) with those that applied but did
not implement, we find that these policies significantly slowed
declines in Hispanic-white segregation, particularly in early-adopting
Southern counties where enforcement was most aggressive. We find no
evidence that the program altered patterns of segregation for
non-Hispanics. Our analysis suggests that these effects are driven by
shifts in residential mobility and migration behaviors among Latino
households, as enforcement amplified economic vulnerability, fear, and
spatial isolation. By demonstrating how immigration enforcement
disrupts Latino integration into residential communities, this study
reveals the far-reaching consequences of these policies for racial
stratification and neighborhood inequality in the United States.

Brigham Young University Faculty Publications, 2025.

Colleen S. Walsh  · Terri N. Sullivan  · Wendy Kliewer  · Katherine M. Ross

 Firearm violence is a public health crisis in the United States that
disproportionately impacts community members in lowincome areas who
witness and experience violence and violent victimization at elevated
rates compared to other socioeconomic groups, often as result of
community disinvestment and systemic racism (Smith et al., Soc Sci Med
246:112587, 2020). While quantitative reviews of firearm violence and
related factors exist, a review of qualitative methods and findings
regarding exposure to firearm violence has not yet been conducted.
This scoping review sought to address a gap in the literature by
summarizing the findings of qualitative studies on community firearm
violence in low-income settings in the U.S. EBSCO databases, Criminal
Justice Abstracts, National Criminal Justice Reference Service
Abstracts, ProQuest, and PsycINFO were searched for studies that
described the firearm related experiences of individuals and families
in low-income communities. Thirty studies met the criteria for review.
Findings were situated within the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention’s (CDC) Social-Ecological Model as a framework for
prevention (CDC, The social-ecological model: a framework for
prevention,

Journal of Community Health (2025) 50:287–305

By Graeme R. Newman and Claude AI.

Long before probation became the most widely used criminal sanction in America, leading criminologists, judges, lawyers, social workers, psychiatrists, and probation administrators gathered to answer a fundamental question:

Could offenders be rehabilitated in the community instead of being sent to prison?

Originally published in 1933 as a tribute to pioneering probation leader Herbert C. Parsons, Probation and Criminal Justicebrought together some of the most influential voices in early twentieth-century criminal justice. Their essays explored sentencing, rehabilitation, probation administration, judicial discretion, psychiatric treatment, casework methods, and comparative probation systems in the United States, England, France, Belgium, and Germany.

Nearly a century later, the book reads with surprising relevance. The contributors debated many of the same issues that continue to dominate criminal justice policy today: overcrowded prisons, evidence-based sentencing, risk assessment, officer training, community supervision, recidivism, and the tension between punishment and rehabilitation.

This Mini-Classic edition presents an expertly condensed and accessible version of the original volume, preserving the essential arguments, insights, and debates while making them available to modern readers.

Inside you will discover:

• The origins and early development of probation in America and Europe

• Sheldon Glueck's influential critique of punishment and rehabilitation

• The legal and constitutional issues raised by probation

• How probation officers were selected, trained, and supervised

• Competing views of sentencing from judges and criminologists

• Early psychiatric and social-work approaches to offender treatment

• Comparative probation systems in England, France, Belgium, and Germany

• A modern commentary examining what has and has not changed since 1933

Part historical document, part policy debate, and part blueprint for reform, Probation and Criminal Justice captures a pivotal moment when criminal justice thinkers were struggling to replace purely punitive responses to crime with more individualized and humane approaches.

For students, scholars, practitioners, and anyone interested in the history of corrections and criminal justice reform, this volume offers a fascinating window into ideas that continue to shape probation and community supervision today.

Crime and Justice Mini-Classics bring influential but often overlooked works in criminology, policing, punishment, and criminal justice history back into print in concise, accessible editions for contemporary readers.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.83.

Raymond B. Fosdick. Designed and Edited with an Introduction by Graeme R. Newman and Claude.

A landmark classic in the history of policing, public administration, and criminal justice reform.

When Raymond B. Fosdick published Police Administration in 1921 as part of the renowned Cleveland Foundation Survey of Criminal Justice, he delivered one of the most penetrating examinations ever undertaken of an American police department. More than a century later, his analysis remains remarkably relevant.

Confronted by rising crime and concerns about police effectiveness, Cleveland commissioned an independent investigation of its law enforcement system. Fosdick responded with a rigorous, evidence-based study that compared American policing with the more professionalized police systems of Europe. His conclusions were blunt: crime was not simply the product of social conditions, but also of outdated organization, weak leadership, inadequate training, political interference, and a failure to adapt policing to the demands of the modern city.

This groundbreaking work examines every major aspect of police administration, including:

• Police organization and leadership

• Recruitment, selection, and training of officers

• Promotion and discipline systems

• Patrol operations and crime prevention

• Detective bureau management

• Personnel administration and record keeping

• Accountability, professionalism, and public service

Fosdick's recommendations anticipated many reforms that would shape twentieth-century policing: merit-based advancement, professional training academies, modern management practices, specialized investigative units, and the use of data and performance measurement in public administration.

This new edition includes a substantial introduction by criminologist Graeme R. Newman, placing Fosdick's work in historical context and exploring its continuing significance in contemporary debates over police reform, professionalism, accountability, and governance.

More than a historical document, Police Administration is an essential source for understanding the origins of modern policing and the enduring challenges of managing police organizations in democratic societies.

Ideal for readers interested in:

• Police history

• Criminal justice

• Criminology

• Public administration

• American legal history

• Progressive Era reform

• Law enforcement studies

• Government and public policy

A century after its publication, Fosdick's classic reminds us that effective policing depends not only on laws and officers, but on leadership, organization, and the intelligent administration of justice.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.104.

By Graeme R. Newman and Claude AI.

A landmark investigation into how America's criminal justice system actually worked, and why it often failed.

In 1921, a series of scandals and rising public concern about crime prompted the Cleveland Foundation to commission an unprecedented examination of the administration of justice in Cleveland, Ohio. Directed by two of the most influential legal minds of the twentieth century, Roscoe Pound and Felix Frankfurter, the resulting study became one of the most important reform documents in American criminal justice history.

Originally published in 1922, Criminal Justice in Cleveland was the first comprehensive effort to analyze an entire urban justice system as an interconnected whole. Drawing on detailed investigations of police, prosecutors, courts, corrections, probation, legal education, medical science, and the press, the survey revealed a system plagued by inefficiency, poor record-keeping, fragmented authority, political influence, and a startling lack of accountability.

This modernized edition, edited and introduced by Graeme R. Newman, makes this classic study accessible to today's readers while preserving its most important findings, statistics, and arguments. Readers will discover:

• How police departments operated in major American cities during the early twentieth century
• Why so many criminal cases disappeared before reaching trial
• The hidden influence of politics, public opinion, and newspapers on justice
• Early debates over probation, parole, rehabilitation, and sentencing reform
• The origins of evidence-based criminal justice research
• Reform proposals that continue to resonate more than a century later

Written during the Progressive Era but strikingly relevant today, Criminal Justice in Cleveland demonstrates that many of the challenges confronting modern police, prosecutors, courts, and correctional institutions are far older than most people realize. Its authors recognized that successful reform requires more than replacing individuals; it requires understanding how institutions work, how they fail, and how they can be improved.

Essential reading for students of criminology, criminal justice professionals, legal scholars, historians, policymakers, and anyone interested in the evolution of the American justice system.

More than a century after its publication, this pioneering study remains one of the most insightful examinations ever written of crime, law, and urban justice in America

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.90.

By Aaron Littman

The roughly two million people incarcerated in the United States are mostly left to advocate for themselves, aided sometimes by a sparse constellation of non-profit organizations and small firms, and accompanied by a smattering of weak oversight entities and a couple of units within the Department of Justice. But there is another entity, virtually unmentioned in the legal literature, that can—and in some jurisdictions, does—play a powerful role in advancing the rights of the large subset of prisoners with disabilities: the federally mandated protection and advocacy system, or P&A. Drawing on findings from twenty-five interviews with affiliated lawyers and other advocates, this Article presents the first scholarly consideration of the P&A’s role in ameliorating prison and jail conditions.

Congress afforded these little-known disability-rights organizations, which exist in each state, startling access authority and privileged ability to assert associational standing. The only entities in the country that provide both independent oversight and enforcement through litigation in prisons and jails, they function simultaneously as ‘lawyers with access’ and ‘oversight with teeth.’ Some P&As work to great effect on behalf of incarcerated people with disabilities, using their distinctive powers to circumvent many of the most troubling obstacles to traditional prisoners’ rights advocacy: unfavorable constitutional standards, obstructed fact discovery, the challenges of mootness and class certification, and the procedural hurdles created by the Prison Litigation Reform Act.

By Ingrid V. Eagly

When criminal courts rely on virtual adjudication, one or more participants attend court on a digital screen rather than by traveling to a shared physical courtroom space. Since the 1970s, criminal courts have used live, two-way video connections to allow vulnerable witnesses to testify from remote locations and, more commonly, merely to eliminate the need to transport criminal defendants detained pretrial from the jail to the courtroom. With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, many criminal courts began to hold fully virtual court sessions, with all court participants joining a shared virtual platform such as Zoom. Digital technologies are now a familiar feature of the criminal legal system. However, their use remains under close review by courts, policymakers, and researchers. Proponents cite the speed and convenience that virtual proceedings offer, often framing videoconferencing as an access-to-justice solution that preserves procedural fairness and delivers the functional equivalent of in-person courts. Yet virtual formats also raise complex technical, sociodynamic, and constitutional concerns. Chief among these concerns are that virtual proceedings suppress access to counsel and courtroom interaction, interfere with credibility assessment and cross-examination, dehumanize persons accused of crimes, and reduce public trust in the court system. 

By Lindsay Nash

The nation's "mandatory" immigration-detention laws sustain its largest civil-imprisonment system-and just radically expanded in scope and breadth. These laws consign broad swaths of suspected noncitizens to no-bail pretrial detention, denying tens of thousands of people facing civil regulatory charges any chance to prove they need not be detained. These laws turn split-second arrest decisions into jail sentences. They force people to give up meritorious claims. And they confound the historic presumptions-liberty, innocence, prosecutorial discretion, and bail-that undergird other pretrial-detention regimes. 

Although mandatory immigration detention conflicts with fundamental constraints on analogous detention regimes, the Supreme Court has treated it as exceptional and distinct. On this account, pretrial detention-detention pending proceedings to determine if a person is deportable-has been a "constitutionally valid aspect" of the deportation process for "more than a century" and was well accepted from a constitutional standpoint before any opportunity for release came along. Yet jurisprudence invoking this narrative tells us almost nothing about how detention actually operated at the time and, consequently, what type of detention or process early history and precedent may have enshrined. This Article takes on that task. It draws on critical sources of administrative law-early agency rules, binding interpretations, policy, and case files mined from the archives-to recover the lost history of pretrial-detention power and process during the deportation system's founding and formative years. T

his examination reveals that, in fact, the opportunity for release was virtually always part of deportation's early pretrial-detention scheme; any pretrial detention deemed constitutionally valid during that period came with the possibility of release. And it offers insight on why, showing that the agency's power to release was understood to be critical for a constitutionally permissible regime. Ultimately, this Article illuminates aspects of the early pretrial system that bear on pressing questions about detention and release in the contemporary scheme, and, as mandatory detention hurtles toward massive expansion, provides historical support for arguments to resurrect release.

By Emily Gwydir

A national reckoning on sexual assault began in October of 2017 when The New York Times and The New Yorker reported groundbreaking exposés on “one of Hollywood’s most powerful producers”—Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein was accused by over a dozen women of sexual harassment, assault, and rape, spanning decades. Soon, people across social media platforms began using the hashtag #MeToo to share their own stories of sexual harassment and misconduct by other powerful men, exposing the pervasive culture of sexual assault and ultimately “build[ing] a community of survivors” around the world. The viral outpouring of discourse surrounding sexual assault came to be known as the “#MeToo Movement,” which critically called attention to the pervasive gender inequities and power dynamics that shaped women’s experiences with sexual violence. By May of 2018, more than 50 women had accused Weinstein of sexual assault. That same month, the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office indicted Weinstein, charging him with first- and third-degree rape, firstdegree criminal sexual act, and two counts of predatory sexual assault.

A month-long trial in 2020 followed, where prosecutors presented evidence to a jury purporting to support these charges. All three complainants had met Weinstein through the entertainment industry. Each detailed their relationships with Weinstein and the incidents of sexual violence that led to his criminal indictment. The combined accounts of three of Weinstein’s victims depicted a consistent pattern of forcible sexual acts, including oral and vaginal rape, committed through coercion, physical restraint, and abuse of power. Over the objection of the defense, the prosecution also offered testimony from three additional women alleging how they, too, were sexually assaulted by Weinstein. In the end, the jury convicted Weinstein of third-degree rape and first-degree criminal sexual act, but acquitted him of first-degree rape and both counts of predatory sexual assault. The court sentenced him to 23 years in prison.

However, on April 25, 2024, the New York Court of Appeals in People v. Weinstein reversed Weinstein’s sexual assault convictions and ordered a retrial, partly based on the trial court having admitted testimony of the uncharged sexual misconduct alleged by the three additional women. To the court, the use of additional testimony constituted an impermissible use of uncharged evidence that violated Weinstein’s right to a fair trial. As a general rule, evidence of uncharged acts—meaning evidence of other crimes or misconduct not charged in the indictment—is inadmissible to show that a defendant acted in accordance with a particular character trait. However, in limited, expressly defined circumstances, such evidence may be admitted. The Court of Appeals rejected the trial court’s application of such an exception in People v. Weinstein—a decision that sparked widespread outrage among victims and drew sharp criticism from sexualassault advocates. The following month, New York state legislators introduced legislation to incorporate Federal Rule of Evidence 413 (“Rule 413”) into New York state law, which would have explicitly allowed admission of uncharged evidence in sexual assault trials for any relevant reason...etc.

By Avlana Eisenberg

The clamor for police reform in the United States has reached a fever pitch. The current debate has mainly centered around questions of police function: What functions should police perform, and how should they perform them to avoid injustice and unnecessary harm? This Article, in contrast, focuses on a central aspect of police culture-namely, how police envision their relationship to those policed. It exposes the vast reach of a deeply engrained "danger narrative" and demonstrates the disastrous consequences that this narrative has helped to bring about. Reinforced by police training, codified by courts, and broadly deployed, the danger narrative is an "us-versus-them" ideology that envisions "them"-all persons whom police are observing, investigating, detaining-as a lethal danger to "us"-law enforcement personnel. Structural and functional reforms have little hope of succeeding unless this toxic narrative can be displaced.