By Jess Hickman, Mei Yang, Andy Tisdel, Charlie Riccardelli, Ashley Neufeld, and Amanda Coscia.

When a person facing criminal charges fails to appear for a court hearing, no one benefits. Courts must reschedule hearings and often issue warrants, consuming time and resources. Meanwhile, people who miss court may face additional charges, fees, and even jail time. Jurisdictions across the country have explored interventions such as court date notifications to improve appearance rates, but failures to appear continue to present a challenge. Part of the problem is that the underlying causes are unclear. Research suggests that people miss court for reasons like forgetting the date or not receiving notice.1 Others miss hearings due to a lack of transportation or conflicts with life responsibilities, including employment or providing dependent care. Courts need hard data on why people miss court. However, relatively few studies have systematically investigated this question, leaving courts without the information needed to make policy decisions. To fill this research gap, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), with funding from Arnold Ventures, partnered with Jefferson County, KY (Louisville) and Salt Lake County, UT (Salt Lake City) to survey people who were arrested on a failure to appear warrant.

Boston: Crime and Justice Institute, 2025. 7p.

By Anouschka Rajah, Conleth Burns

Recent events have propelled the criminal justice system to the forefront of public debate. The controversial early release of thousands of prisoners to ease overcrowding was one of Labour’s first acts in government. The Stockport attack, the 2024 summer riots, the media storm over ‘two-tier’ justice, David Gauke’s independent review of sentencing – all have contributed to a new and intense scrutiny of the UK’s approach to crime and punishment. The backdrop to these events is a justice system in crisis, of which the overcrowding of our prisons is only one symptom. As this report shows, victim and wider public confidence has collapsed; voters are deeply frustrated with the status quo and now rank criminal justice alongside the NHS, immigration, and the economy as a top priority for reform. The Common Ground Justice Project, which commissioned this research, aims to find a new way forward for the justice system which can command broad public support. In the context of a noisy, polarised debate, we’re starting by listening: to voters across the country, to victims, perpetrators and communities most affected by crime. To that end, More in Common conducted national polling and focus groups to better understand public attitudes to criminal justice through the lens of their British Seven Segments model. What emerges is a public ready for change, with views more complex than the popular framing of ‘tough’ vs ‘soft’ justice. While there are key differences between segments, most people are not at the extremes. They want a better balance: enforcing punishment while also improving accountability and proportionality and ensuring people who commit crime make a contribution to society rather than being a burden on the taxpayer. This is the emerging common ground that can point towards a different future: delivering a real sense of justice for victims, safer streets, and restoring public confidence – even national pride – in the British justice system. What might such a future look like? While the public shows little enthusiasm for costly prison expansion, many struggle to imagine credible alternatives. Yet our findings show that when people are presented with concrete examples of new approaches that speak to core values, they respond with openness. The will for change is clear – but to harness it, we need greater efforts to identify new ways forward that feel tangible, achievable, and properly resourced. We also found that the public segment whose views on criminal justice differ most sharply from the rest of the country (Progressive Activists) is significantly overrepresented in policy and communication roles across the public and charity sectors. For those advocating change or shaping justice policy, we hope this report underscores the importance of not only following the evidence of what works, but also speaking to the values of the British public whose trust in the system is essential. The report is just the first step, but an important one, of our journey to improve understanding of attitudes on criminal justice and light the way to a justice system that better serves victims and wider society

UK: Common Ground Justice, 2025. 41p.

By Claire Fitzpatrick, Katie Hunter, Jo Staines, Julie Shaw

This article focuses on rarely heard judicial perspectives, and the little explored challenges facing care-experienced girls and women in court. Drawing on semi-structured interviews with judges and magistrates, it reveals how the court process may be a disempowering and inadequate process for both the powerful and the powerless. Using the four elements of procedural justice as a lens to explore this – voice, trust, neutrality and respect – we highlight the immense challenges of achieving these goals for those with histories of being stigmatised and marginalised. In searching for solutions, the concept of ‘judicial rehabilitation’ enables consideration of how we might rehabilitate our systems and imagine a more hopeful approach to justice.

The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 64, 145–161, 2025.

By Melissa M. Labriola; Jessie Coe; Isaac M. Opper; Danielle Sobol; Amy Mahler

This research report presents an evaluation of Neighborhood Courts, a restorative justice diversion program run by the District Attorney in San Francisco. Results indicate that the program reduces recidivism (although this result is statistically insignificant). Neighborhood Courts is built on a restorative justice framework with the use of restorative justice hearings and directives that are assigned to the defendant, all to achieve four primary goals: 1) efficient case resolution; 2) community-driven solutions; reduced burden on criminal courts; and 4) reduced recidivism. This report uses information collected from program staff and participant interviews and surveys, administrative data, and observations of programs to describe how the program is implemented, identify key program facilitators and barriers, illustrate participant experiences, determine whether the model is effective in reducing risk factors for criminal legal involvement (e.g., recidivism), and whether it is cost-effective. This report should be of interest to entities across the U.S. interested in diversion programs.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 37p.

By Evelyn F. McCoy, Azhar Gulaid, Nkechi Erondu, Janeen Buck Willison

Increased rates of pretrial detention have driven overall growth in the jail population nationwide and carry significant individual and systemic impacts for people of color, who are disproportionately affected by pretrial policies. Targeting rates of failure to appear in court in local jurisdictions is key to reducing pretrial jail populations, especially because failure to appear can result in bench warrants and ultimately detention. This case study, part of a series highlighting work supported by the Safety and Justice Challenge Innovation Fund, examines the experiences of Tulsa County, Oklahoma, and Hennepin County, Minnesota, which implemented strategies to reduce rates of failure to appear in court and to reduce their respective jails’ pretrial populations.

Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, 2021. 22p

BY THE PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE

Key Takeaways Archival research conducted for this report demonstrated that racial disparities observed in Philadelphia’s criminal court system are rooted in severe historical injustices and wealth inequality. For over a century, Black Philadelphians have been overrepresented in arrests and criminal charges, relative to their representation in the City’s broader population. Disparities have not been resolved and in many cases have been worsened by federal, state, and local laws and policies. Combining publicly-available datasets reveals that markers of systemic disinvestment such as poverty, unemployment, litter, health problems, and eviction are concentrated in formerly red-lined neighborhoods where residents are predominantly Black and Latinx. From 2015 to 2022, Black defendants were charged at disproportionately higher rates relative to other groups in seven of the eight most common criminal charge categories. Even when accounting for prior criminal record and illegal firearm charges, Black and Latinx individuals who are convicted of aggravated assault or burglary are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than white individuals convicted of the same crime. Latinx individuals convicted of possessing drugs with intent to distribute (PWID) are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration than Black or white defendants, even when they have no prior record or illegal firearm charges. While this administration’s policies have helped to reduce disparities in supervision and probationary sentences, large racial disproportionalities remain in Philadelphia’s court system. Justice agencies and social institutions must work together to fix the structural racism that creates disparities across systems 

Philadelphia: The District Attorney's Office, 2023. 68p.

By Alejandra Garcia, Taylor DeClerck, Amber Moe, Sarah Blanco, Karen Otis, Danielle Pugh

TIPS Lab was born out of the need to address trauma in criminal courts—an urgent need shown by statistics on the prevalence of violence and victimization in the United States. For defendants in criminal courts, the prevalence of trauma is estimated at twice the rate as that of the general population,1 and for female, transgender, and juvenile defendants, experiences of victimization are nearly ubiquitous.2 Trauma can lead to justice system involvement through several mechanisms: substance use spurred by trauma, which can lead to arrest and prosecution for drug-related crimes; coercion to engage in criminal activity by an abusive partner or exploiter; trauma symptoms such as emotional dysregulation, hypervigilance to threat, and angry outbursts that increase risk for engaging in violent behavior and arrest; and utilization of violence as a survival strategy and learned behavior.3 Involvement in the system itself, including arrests, arraignments, and jail stays, are also opportunities for re-traumatization. Individuals who have experienced trauma within the criminal court system may exhibit symptoms such as flashbacks, overwhelming emotional and physiological responses, numbing, and dissociation. These symptoms can impact their well-being and hinder their ability to participate in the legal process. Trauma within the criminal legal system can manifest as attempts to gain a sense of control and safety; difficulty with attention, concentration, and memory; guardedness; and difficulty trusting court practitioners. When trauma is left unaddressed, defendants can cycle through the system, experiencing repeated arrests and prosecutions. Additionally, criminal court practitioners may have had their own traumatic experiences and can also be traumatized, or re-traumatized, which can affect their well-being and effectiveness as a practitioner.4 Practitioners can implement the recommendations in this blueprint to address trauma in order to enhance the consistency and effectiveness of criminal court practice, resulting in processes that are less stressful, calmer, and more comfortable for all court users

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2025. 64p.

By The UK Comptroller and Auditor General

Family justice is concerned with keeping children safe and helping families resolve disputes. It includes cases on protecting children, who children live with and how they spend time with their family, as well as divorce, adoption and associated financial arrangements. In this report we will use the term family justice to refer to government activity on these cases. Family justice is distinct from civil and criminal justice. Family justice cases account for around one in seven cases heard in family, civil or criminal courts. Family justice uses shared assets, such as courtrooms, and shared staff. In this report we focus on the two categories of family justice cases that involve legal disputes over children: ‘public law’ and ‘private law’. Public law cases are brought by local authorities to protect a child from harm. Private law cases involve parental disputes, such as the living or contact arrangements for their child. These two types of cases are among the most costly and time-consuming family court cases as they can involve vulnerable children, substance misuse and domestic abuse. In 2024, there were 15,980 new public law cases and 51,473 new private law cases. Family justice involves the judiciary and several central government organisations and public bodies working together. The Department for Education (DfE) and the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) are the lead policy departments for public law and private law, respectively. Local authorities are statutorily responsible for safeguarding children and social work. HM Courts & Tribunals Service (HMCTS) is responsible for administration of the courts and judges and magistrates hear the cases. The Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) and its equivalent in Wales, Cafcass Cymru, advise the courts on what is safe for children and in their best interests. Independent solicitors and barristers represent families at court and may be funded by legal aid. The way a case is managed differs between public law and private law (Figure 2) but broadly involves: • working with families to improve care or provide support to resolve issues before court; • if the child’s safety is at risk or a solution cannot be found, an application is made to the court; • assessments are made, evidence is collected and court hearings held; and • the magistrate or judge will decide on the best course of action and make a court order. These can vary from taking the child into local authority care to setting parental contact. Scope 5 This report reviews the government’s approach to improving how public law and private law cases are managed, with a specific focus on improving family justice services for children. This report covers England and Wales. The main government bodies we have audited are MoJ, DfE, HMCTS and Cafcass in England. Cafcass Cymru is a devolved service, delivered and funded by the Welsh Government, and is therefore outside the scope of this report. We do not audit the judiciary, which is constitutionally independent of the executive branches of government. Therefore, although we are aware of judicial-led improvement work, we have not evaluated this work in our audit. We have focused on the family courts process from where a case is brought to court onwards, and have not audited the work of local authorities. We have not audited the quality of children’s services or the outcomes of cases. Timeliness of family courts 6 Family courts have a backlog of cases but have recovered better than criminal courts after the COVID-19 pandemic. In December 2024, there were 47,662 outstanding cases; 10,121 in public law and 37,541 in private law. Unlike in Crown Courts where the outstanding caseload has continued to rise following the pandemic, the outstanding caseload in family courts has reduced by 18,081 (28%) from a peak of 65,743 cases in August 2021. This is partly because family court demand has fallen over the period. Also, MoJ increased funding and sitting days for family courts in 2020-21 to help reduce the outstanding caseload. Both the backlog and funding have since reduced; HMCTS expenditure on family courts was 17% lower than in 2021-22 in 2023-24 prices (£368 million in 2020-21; £307 million in 2023-24). The government has not set out how it assesses the appropriate capacity to manage the caseload most efficiently (paragraphs 1.6, 1.7, 2.21, Figure 4 and Figure 5). Children and families are still waiting too long to have their cases resolved. A statutory time limit was introduced in 2014, for most public law cases to be resolved within 26 weeks. However, the average time taken has consistently been longer and there is no limit to the number of extensions that can be given. In 2024, a public law case lasted 36 weeks on average. There is no timeliness target for private law, and in 2024 a case took 41 weeks on average. There is significant regional and local variation in timeliness. For example, in December 2024, public law cases lasted on average 29 weeks longer in London (53 weeks) than in Wales (24 weeks) and private law cases lasted on average 52 weeks longer (70 weeks in London and 18 weeks in Wales). In December 2024, there were over 4,000 children involved in public and private law proceedings that have remained open for more than 100 weeks. The proportion of children waiting over a year for a public law case increased from 0.7% in January 2017 to 12% in December 2024 (paragraphs 1.8 to 1.10 and Figure 6). (Continued)

London; The UK National Audit Office (NAO) , 2025. 57p.

By LINDSAY GRAEF, SANDRA G. MAYSON, AURÉLIE OUSS & MEGAN T. STEVENSON

This Article aims to reorient the conversation around “failure-to-appear” (FTA) in criminal court. Recent policy and scholarship have addressed FTA mostly as a problem of criminal defendants in connection with questions about how bail systems should operate. But ten years of data from Philadelphia reveal a striking fact: it is not defendants who most frequently fail to appear but rather the other parties necessary for a criminal proceeding—witnesses and lawyers. Between 2010 and 2020, an essential witness or private attorney failed to appear for at least one hearing in 53% of all cases, compared to a 19% FTA rate for defendants. Police officers, victims, other witnesses, and private attorneys each failed to appear at rates substantially higher than defendants. In short: FTA is a systemic phenomenon.

The systemic nature of FTA calls into question the extreme asymmetry between the treatment of defendant and non-defendant FTA. Bail reform has generated intense debates about when cash bail, detention, and other pretrial interventions are warranted to ensure defendants’ appearance. Given that witnesses and lawyers also have a legal duty to appear, the systemic nature of FTA requires more comprehensive thinking about how best to get people to court and when restrictions on liberty are appropriate.

Systemic FTA also has systemic consequences, because when essential witnesses don’t show, cases are dismissed or withdrawn. FTA thus serves a regulatory function by providing a check on the nature and volume of criminal adjudications. Sometimes this function seems beneficial, as when witness FTA carries information about the strength or worth of the case, but other times it seems like a problem. The sheer volume of police officer FTA creates an impression of arbitrariness, dysfunction, and disrespect. Other aspects of this regulatory dynamic are more ambiguous. For instance, victim FTA rates are so persistently high that many appear to be effectively “opting out” of the criminal proceeding. Does this tell us that certain classes of harm are better dealt with outside of the criminal legal process? Or are we, as a society, losing something valuable when cases are dismissed due to victim or witness nonappearance? More generally, when is witness FTA a problem and when is it a healthy check on the system? This Article aims to draw attention to systemic FTA as an important feature of contemporary U.S. criminal legal systems, identify the core questions that it raises, and lay a path for future research.

172 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (2024)., 60p.

By  Julian Adler, Jethro Antoine, Kush R. Varshney

It is hard to know where we stand in the timeline of AI implementation in the criminal legal space. Part of the challenge is that the criminal legal “system” is in reality a multiverse of federal, state, and local jurisdictions.[1] More problematic still is the sheer ubiquity of AI and related technologies. “I think the most important thing people don't know is that tech is now working at mega scale,” observes Eric Schmidt, the former chairman and CEO of Google, cautioning—via the title of a recent Oscar-winning film—that tech is “everything everywhere all at once.”[2] What we do know is that AI is already in use in the criminal legal realm and, given the human propensity to reach for technological solutions to social problems, its further adoption is almost certainly unstoppable.[3] So how best to navigate the current moment of AI implementation? “We need a clear line in the sand: ‘these use-cases are OK, these are not,’” urges Sara Friedman of The Council of State Governments Justice Center. “The criminal legal system deprives people of their liberty. It shouldn’t be using AI to do this. There is a line when you are responsible for people’s lives; there are things you shouldn’t do.” 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2025. 9p.

By Lama Hassoun Ayoub, Adelle Fontanet, Suvi Hynynen Lambson, Noel Altaha, Desiree Fox, Ann Miller, Alisha Morrison, and Lina Villegas

  Decisions about what to do with people coming through the criminal court system can have long-lasting impacts on those individuals’ well-being and public safety more broadly. Will putting them in jail make things better or worse? Will offering them services help address some of the underlying issues that brought them to court in the first place? Given the complexity of these decisions, criminal justice practitioners have increasingly relied on risk assessments to help them systematically make these determinations. But assessments used in one context do not always translate well to other contexts. In particular, tribal courts—courts operated by Indian tribes under laws and procedures that the Tribe has enacted (Jones, 2000)—have found these assessments lacking and not always appropriate for their unique context and population. Because of this, there has been a desire among tribal practitioners to develop their own risk assessment tools or ensure appropriate validation of existing tools within their tribal contexts or with tribal populations. This report summarizes the first steps that the Center for Court Innovation and the Tribal Defenders of the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes have taken to build knowledge and lay the groundwork for advancing risk-need assessment, data management, and technological capacity in tribal courts. Chapter 1 introduces the need for a tribal-specific assessment and provides a detailed description of the tribal-researcher partnership that was created to deepen our collective understanding around these neglected topics and building the capacities needed to embark on future projects, including validation of new or existing risk-need assessments. Chapter 2 summarizes the findings from a survey of tribal courts intended to understand existing assessment practices and technology needs--key information that would help serve as the foundation for any future work on this subject. Chapter 3 concludes with recommendations for next steps for the development, validation, and implementation of an appropriate risk assessment tool to be used in tribal courts.  

  New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2021. 37p.  

By Jordan Conan and Jeffrey Sharlein

Infants and toddlers (aged 0-3) are overrepresented in the child welfare system and are more likely than older children to be removed from their original caregiver and placed in out-of-home care. Implementation of our Strong Starts Court Initiative in a New York City courtroom led to a decrease in removal rate for program-eligible subject children from their original caregiver and was associated with an increase in children residing with that caregiver a year later. This program seeks to support families of children aged 0-3 through direct services, judicial and attorney education, and a more collaborative court process.

The findings from this study complement results from an earlier evaluation that showed a decrease in subsequent child welfare court episodes for Strong Starts participants. Together, these studies paint a picture of an intervention that improves outcomes at both the individual case and courtroom levels—creating more stability for children, improving family court outcomes for their respondent caregivers, and preserving attachment relationships.

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 29p.

By Julian Adler, Jethro Antoine, Laith Al-Saadoon 

There was but one passing reference to “core values” over the course of a recent U.S. Senate Judiciary hearing on artificial intelligence [AI] in criminal investigations and prosecutions.[1] This is typical. Even in spaces like the criminal legal system, where the specters of racial injustice and inhumanity loom so large, the technological sublimity of AI can be awfully distracting. People have long looked to technology to duck the hard problem of values. “[W]e have tended to believe that if we just had more information, we could make better policy,” observes University of Nevada’s Lynda Walsh in Scientists as Prophets. “But no matter how much data we could lay hands to—even if it were LaPlace’s Demon itself—values would still stand in the way.”[2] If anything is clear about advanced AI, it is that there is much we don’t know and even more that we can’t begin to predict. Consider that the “generative AI” we have witnessed over the past 18 months—AI which produces autonomous human-impersonating content—was largely unforeseen. It’s now being attributed to AI’s “emergent abilities.”[3] Across sectors, most observers acknowledge that AI is a game-changing technology. The Financial Industry Regulatory Authority is illustrative: using AI, it now processes “a peak volume of 600 billion transactions every day to detect potential abuses,” making the regulator “one of the largest data processors in the world.”[4] Tell  ingly, many of the people closest to the leading edges of AI development are sounding the loudest alarms about its capabilities. “Mitigating the risk of extinction from AI should be a global priority alongside other societal-scale risks such as pandemics and nuclear war,” warned the Center for AI Safety in 2023.[5] AI has the potential to supercharge, not mitigate, the uglier sides of humanity, much like, as one journalist puts it, “a fun-house-style… mirror magnifying biases and stripping out the context from which their information comes.”[6] Advanced AI is “not just another technology,” contends Nick Bostrom, Director of the Future of Humanity Institute at the University of Oxford. It is not “another tool that will add incrementally to human capabilities.”[7] Echoing countless dystopian projections of the future, the Center for AI Safety predicts AI systems will likely “become harder to control” than previous forms of technology; among other disquieting scenarios, these systems could “drift from their original goals” and “optimize flawed objectives.”[8] 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 8p.

By Sruthi Naraharisetti

In the wake of several high-profile systemic failures of justice for Black people in the last decade, there have been widespread demands for change against pervasive racial inequities throughout the criminal legal system. These failures include the killings by law enforcement1 of Tamir Rice, Michael Brown, George Floyd, and Breonna Taylor; the excessive use of confinement and untimely deaths of Sandra Bland and Kalief Browder; and the determination of the wrongful convictions of the Central Park 5. While much of the public discourse has focused on how law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and correctional officers perpetuate racial biases, far less attention has been on how public defense attorneys do, as well. Recently, scholars have started examining how race affects legal representation in public defense. The Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to counsel in criminal cases and the Supreme Court has held that the government will provide a lawyer if a person cannot afford it. Each decision point of a public defense lawyer’s assistance is vulnerable to racial bias and the potential for long-lasting harm to clients. Despite calls from the American Bar Association's Standards for the Defense Function4 for defense counsel to be proactive in detecting, investigating, and eliminating improper biases, with particular attention towards historically persistent biases like race, achieving this standard has proven difficult. Often operating with limited time, resources, and information, public defense attorneys must make critical decisions relating to bail requests, case investigations, social service needs, plea negotiations, and trial strategies, among others. Recognizing the pivotal role that public defense attorneys play in addressing racial disparities that their clients face, our exploratory study seeks to create a basis of understanding for how attorneys consider race when working with clients, conceptualize their role in addressing racial inequity, and experience the impact of their own racial/ethnic identities in the workplace. By shedding light on these issues, we hope to encourage public defense attorneys to reflect on and discuss how racial bias within their field perpetuates systemic harm, ultimately paving the way for improvement in racial equity across the field. 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 14p.

By Daniel Ades Center for Justice Innovation Jessica Kay 

3,026 New Yorkers lost their lives as a result of a drug overdose in 2022, a 12% increase from the prior year and the highest number since reporting began in 2000. This increase in overdose deaths was evident across all five boroughs, and it expanded inequities based on race, age, income, and geography.[1] Throughout the process of conducting quarterly meetings, the RxStat[2] Overdose Fatality Review Committee (OFR) realized that many individuals who fatally overdosed in New York City had previous contact with the criminal justice system. A brief review of the 20 OFR cases examined since June 2021 indicated that only one of them had no recorded criminal justice interaction.[3] According to the New York State Office of Addiction Services and Supports (OASAS), persons with criminal justice involvement account for 47% of all treatment admissions to OASAS-certified programs.[4] However, for the reasons discussed below, criminal courts are not always the optimal setting for individuals struggling with problem drug use to access treatment services. Ideally, preventive community-based treatment providers would intervene in an individual’s problem drug use before the related behavior leads to criminal court involvement. Even so, given the reality of increased overdose deaths and the prevalence of problem substance use among individuals caught up in the criminal justice system, there was a clear need to explore the role of the courts in responding to individuals with substance use issues and preventing overdose fatalities. On September 19, 2023, RxStat and the Center for Justice Innovation facilitated Substance Use, Overdose Prevention, and the Courts: A Citywide Collaboration at New York Law School to address issues related to this epidemic of overdose fatalities. The all-day event[5] focused on the role of the courts as an intercept point in addressing substance use disorder and preventing fatal overdoses, with an emphasis on communication among stakeholders in the criminal justice system, across boroughs, and between the many disciplines and agencies reflected in the event’s participants. Indeed, a primary inspiration for the event was bringing together the court-based perspectives with those of clinical and public health professionals to deepen the dialogue and establish connections between participants who struggle daily with the same issues but may not be aware of each other’s challenges. This report not only documents the differing viewpoints and major themes from the day, highlights critical questions raised, and summarizes innovative approaches being employed throughout the city—it is also intended to serve as a catalyst for continued dialogue between participants and make recommendations for court stakeholders to consider in trying to expand the number of individuals who could access potentially life-saving treatment as a result of their court involvement  

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 20p.  

By Brittany R. Davis, Rebecca Thomforde Hauser, Heaven Berhane, Gene Johnson, Saloni Sethi, Bea Hanson, Devin Deane, and Karolin Betances

Many responses to intimate partner violence (IPV), especially work to engage those who have caused harm through IPV have remained relatively unchanged over the past few decades despite the widespread, long-lasting, and devastating impact IPV continues to have on communities. Engaging people who cause harm is a crucial part of supporting survivors, fostering healthy relationships and communities, and ending violence. In response to a need to develop more effective programming, New York City implemented a comprehensive citywide approach to people who cause harm, developing multiple programming options for people who cause harm both within and outside of the criminal legal system. This concept paper outlines these programs and proposes several practice implications for the field. 

New York: Center for Court Innovation, 2024. 24p...

The Blackstone Commentaries on Criminal Law are part of Sir William Blackstone's influential 18th-century work, Commentaries on the Laws of England. This comprehensive treatise, published between 1765 and 1769, is divided into four volumes. The fourth volume, "Of Public Wrongs," focuses on criminal law. The other volumes are "Of the Rights of Persons," "Of the Rights of Things," and "Of Private Wrongs. "”

In "Of Public Wrongs," Blackstone provides a detailed examination of the criminal laws of England, aiming to demonstrate their justice and mercy. Despite the severe penalties of the time, later known as the "Bloody Code," Blackstone's work sought to rationalize and justify the legal system's approach to crime and punishment.

The Commentaries were groundbreaking for their readability and accessibility, making complex legal principles understandable to a broader audience. They played a significant role in the development of both British and American legal systems and continue to be referenced in legal education and court decision

By Joanna R. Lampe

Federal law generally prohibits the production, distribution, and possession of marijuana for both medical
and recreational purposes. In April 2024, news outlets reported that the Drug Enforcement Administration
(DEA) planned to change the status of marijuana under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) by moving
it from Schedule I to the less restrictive Schedule III. Such a move would relax some controls over
marijuana but would not immediately legalize medical or recreational use of marijuana under the CSA.
Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state
law criminal prohibitions on some marijuana-related activities, and medical and recreational cannabis
businesses now operate openly in some parts of the United States.
In response to the disparity between state and federal law, Congress has enacted appropriations legislation
prohibiting the Department of Justice (DOJ) from expending appropriated funds to prevent states from
implementing their own medical marijuana laws. Federal courts have interpreted the appropriations rider
to prohibit DOJ from bringing criminal drug prosecutions against certain persons and entities involved in
the state-legal medical marijuana industry, but they have differed as to the scope of conduct the rider
shields from prosecution.
This Legal Sidebar first outlines the legal status of marijuana under federal and state law. It then discusses
the medical marijuana appropriations rider and analyzes how federal courts have interpreted the
provision. The Sidebar closes with key considerations for Congress related to the appropriations rider and
the disparity between federal and state marijuana policy more generally.
Federal and State Marijuana Regulation
The plant Cannabis sativa L. and products derived from that plant have a number of uses and may be
subject to several overlapping legal regimes. In recent years, a significant divide has developed between
federal and state marijuana laws. On the federal side, the CSA imposes stringent regulations on the
cannabis plant and many of its derivatives. Activities involving controlled substances not authorized
under the CSA are federal crimes that may give rise to large fines and significant prison sentences.
Unless an exception applies, the CSA classifies cannabis and its derivatives as marijuana. Congress
classified marijuana as a Schedule I controlled substance when it enacted the CSA, reflecting a legislative

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2024. 5p.

By Megan Comfort, Jenn Rineer, Elizabeth Tibaduiza, and Monica Sheppard

The “pretrial process” refers to the events that happen between the time that one is suspected by law enforcement of violating the law and the time that charges are dismissed, the case is otherwise resolved, or the trial process begins. During the pretrial period, people are considered innocent under the law. The U.S. Supreme Court1 has stated, “In our society, liberty is the norm, and detention prior to trial or without trial is the carefully limited exception.” The only two constitutionally valid reasons for holding someone in jail during the pretrial period are (1) to prevent flight or (2) to prevent harm to people in the community. Judges make decisions every day about whether to detain or release people going through the pretrial process, as well as about what conditions of release may be needed to help people succeed. Pretrial release assessments are designed to inform their decisions. Unlike assessments that involve a clinician or other professional drawing on their subjective expertise to make a recommendation, actuarial pretrial release assessmentsa rely on mathematical processes. Using large data sets with information about people who previously went through the pretrial process, researchers identify factors related to appearing for court hearings and not being arrested again if released. The researchers then create a sequence of instructions for a computer to follow (called an algorithm) that uses these factors to calculate an estimated likelihood that a person will appear in court and remain arrest free while their case is being resolved. This calculation—referred to as a “score”—is provided to the judge as information to consider when making decisions about pretrial release. A person’s score is also often provided as information to other courtroom actors, such as prosecutors, defense attorneys, and pretrial services officers. When thinking about actuarial pretrial release assessments, it is important to understand the history of the criminal legal system in the United States, which is deeply rooted in the legacy of slavery. Read Race and the Criminal Justice System2 by the Equal Justice Initiative to learn more. No actuarial pretrial release assessment tool or instrument is considered standard. Numerous assessments have been developed, and they vary in terms of the factors and instructions entered in the algorithm. Some use factors that are available through criminal legal system records, such as whether someone has been arrested before or has previously missed a court date. Others include factors like whether someone has a job, is enrolled in a substance use treatment program, or has a place to live. This information is usually obtained by talking with the person who has been arrested. At the time of this writing, pretrial release assessments use algorithms that are created by humans as opposed to ones that are generated by machine learning or artificial intelligence (AI). It is possible that future assessments will rely on AI, which would raise a different set of issues to consider. The use of actuarial pretrial release assessments is growing across the United States. Often, they are an element of broader system change aimed at reducing or eliminating the use of cash bonds, which require people to post money to be released from jail. Judges may consider the actuarial pretrial release assessment score when deciding what conditions of release—for instance, electronic monitoring or mandatory check-ins with pretrial services—are appropriate for a person. In systems that retain money bond as a potential release condition, assessments are sometimes used to inform decisions about bond amounts, but the impact on release is lessened if people remain in jail because they cannot afford to pay their way out. Judges may also use the score as part of their decision about whether to keep someone in jail or release them while their case is pending

APPR Research Brief, April 2024. Research Triangle Park, NC: RTI International, 2024. 5p.

By American Bar Association Working Group on Building Public Trust in the American Justice System

Released in June 2020, this Report provides a comprehensive overview of the role private companies play throughout the criminal justice system and how the use of these private companies impacts low-income individuals moving through the system. The Report summarizes research done by other entities, academics, journalists, and activists on specific aspects of privatization. The organization of the report tracks the sequence of a typical accused individual's experiences in the criminal justice system following arrest, demonstrating how costs compound as the individual moves through the system.

The Report acknowledges that courts and other government entities sometimes need to import expertise they lack, but it urges governments to recognize how low-income individuals too often can be relentlessly ensnared in the criminal justice system, not because they engage in ongoing criminal activity, but because they cannot pay the debts imposed by the system itself. Too often, by hiring private companies to handle what were previously governmental functions in the criminal justice system, government agencies exacerbate the cycle of mandatory fees, nonpayment, and consequent additional fees. Far too frequently, government authorities allow private companies to operate in the criminal justice system with little or no oversight and to charge fees untethered to actual costs.

The Report urges the ABA to adopt specific policy on the privatization of services in the criminal justice system, as well as to promote the policies, already in existence, calling for careful limitations on fines and fees.

Chicago: ABA, 2020. 36p.