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 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 Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Arthur Train was not merely a novelist of crime and courtroom intrigue—he was an Assistant District Attorney in New York County who understood the hidden machinery of American justice from the inside. In Justice on Trial, two of his most compelling works—Prisoner at the Bar and McCallister’s Double—are brought together in a powerful new edition edited and introduced by Graeme R. Newman.

Part legal exposé, part philosophical inquiry, part classic crime fiction, this volume explores questions that remain disturbingly relevant today: How is guilt really determined? Do courts discover truth—or construct it? Why are prisons hidden from public view? Do criminals receive justice, or merely punishment? And what of the victims left behind by the machinery of law?

In Prisoner at the Bar, Train offers a rare insider’s account of the criminal justice system of early twentieth-century America. Drawing upon his own prosecutorial experience, he exposes the realities behind arrests, grand juries, trials, sentencing, police practices, courtroom performance, and the uneasy relationship between law and morality. The result is one of the earliest and most penetrating critiques of modern criminal justice ever written.

Complementing this work is McCallister’s Double, a brilliant collection of courtroom and criminal tales filled with deception, mistaken identity, legal maneuvering, and moral ambiguity. These stories reveal Train’s remarkable ability to combine suspense with sharp observations about the fictions upon which justice itself often depends.

Graeme R. Newman’s extensive new introduction places Train’s work within the larger history of crime, punishment, and legal power, comparing the courts and prisons of Train’s era with those of the twenty-first century. The introduction examines the secrecy of prisons, the hidden social functions of trials, the mythology of “justice,” and the enduring question of whether criminal justice systems truly deliver fairness—or merely preserve authority.

Blending classic legal writing, detective fiction, social criticism, and courtroom drama, Justice on Trial is both a fascinating historical document and a strikingly modern meditation on crime, punishment, truth, and power.

For readers of true crime, legal history, courtroom drama, criminology, and classic detective fiction, this volume offers a rare and unsettling look behind the curtain of justice itself.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.362.

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Before modern courtroom thrillers and television crime dramas, Arthur Train was bringing readers inside the strange, unpredictable, and deeply human world of criminal law. The Kid and the Camel: Stories of the Court and Criminality collects some of Train’s most memorable tales from the New York courts, blending legal realism, sharp humor, and penetrating social observation.

At the center of the volume is the celebrated story “The Kid and the Camel,” a bizarre and unforgettable courtroom case involving immigrants, conflicting testimony, cultural misunderstanding, and a camel hidden in a city attic. Around it unfolds a wider panorama of criminal justice in early twentieth-century America: ambitious lawyers, eccentric witnesses, cunning swindlers, ethical dilemmas, jury manipulation, and the uncertain search for truth inside crowded urban courtrooms.

This collection also features the famous Tutt & Tutt stories, introducing one of American fiction’s earliest and most sophisticated lawyer-heroes. Through the clever, theatrical, and psychologically astute attorney Ephraim Tutt, Train explores the law not merely as a system of rules, but as a human drama shaped by persuasion, ambiguity, and competing notions of justice.

Far more than period entertainment, these stories remain strikingly relevant today. Issues of immigration, courtroom spectacle, prosecutorial strategy, media influence, unequal justice, and the power of lawyers continue to dominate modern criminal justice systems. Train’s fiction reveals how little the essential tensions of law and society have changed.

Edited and introduced by Graeme Newman, this new Read-Me.Org edition restores an important classic of American legal literature for contemporary readers interested in true crime, courtroom drama, criminology, legal history, and the enduring complexities of justice itself.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.367.

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

tep into the shadowed world of early twentieth‑century justice, where truth is elusive, appearances deceive, and a single misjudgment can alter lives forever. The Lost Stradivarius and Other True Crime Classics by Arthur Train brings together some of the most compelling real cases ever drawn from the files of a New York prosecutor. Written with the authority of firsthand experience and the narrative power of a master storyteller, these accounts reveal the drama, tension, and human complexity behind headline crimes. At the heart of the collection is The Lost Stradivarius, a haunting tale of a priceless violin whose disappearance sets in motion a troubling chain of suspicion, error, and unintended injustice. Around it unfold other striking cases—of ingenious frauds, daring deceptions, and courtroom battles in which certainty proves fragile and truth stubbornly resists easy conclusions. Throughout, Train explores not only crime itself, but the deeper forces of character, ambition, and fallibility that shape the pursuit of justice. This new edition features a fresh introduction by Graeme R. Newman, placing these enduring stories in modern perspective and highlighting their continuing relevance. Timeless, unsettling, and richly human, this collection reminds us that truth is often stranger—and far more unsettling—than fiction.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.187..

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Step inside the courtroom—and beyond it—through the eyes of a man who knew both the practice of law and the art of storytelling.

Arthur Train, a former New York prosecutor and celebrated author, offers a vivid and deeply reflective account of life in the criminal courts. Drawing on real cases, personal experience, and keen psychological insight, Confessions of a Prosecutor reveals the drama, uncertainty, and moral complexity behind the pursuit of justice. These are not merely stories of trials—they are portraits of human nature under pressure, where truth, perception, and judgment are rarely simple.

More than a legal memoir, this book is a masterclass in understanding how justice is truly administered. Train exposes the hidden tensions of courtroom life: unreliable witnesses, circumstantial evidence, the burden of decision, and the immense responsibility borne by those who prosecute in the name of society. His reflections remain strikingly relevant today, offering timeless lessons on fairness, doubt, and the ethical challenges of wielding authority.

What makes this work especially compelling is Train’s dual perspective as both practitioner and writer. With the skill of a seasoned storyteller, he shapes real events into engaging narratives—blending fact and interpretation to illuminate the deeper truths behind the law. The result is a work that is as absorbing as it is instructive, where the boundary between reality and narrative art invites thoughtful reflection.

In its later chapters, Train turns to another side of his life: the craft of writing and the realities of building a career beyond the courtroom. He offers a fascinating glimpse into the world of early twentieth-century publishing—writing for popular magazines, reaching a wide audience, and transforming professional experience into stories that endure. His journey underscores the discipline, adaptability, and persistence required to succeed as an author.

Confessions of a Prosecutor is an essential read for anyone interested in law, justice, and the power of storytelling. It is a book for lawyers and readers alike—for those who seek to understand not only how the law works, but how it feels to live within it.

Experience the courtroom as it truly is: human, uncertain, and endlessly compelling.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.381.

By Arthur Train (Author) and Graeme Newman (Editor and Introduction)

Before true crime became entertainment and courtroom drama became television spectacle, Arthur Train took readers directly inside the machinery of American criminal justice. Drawing on his experience in the New York District Attorney’s Office, Train produced one of the first and most compelling insider accounts of how criminal law actually worked—from arrest and indictment to jury trial, sentencing, and the uneasy pursuit of justice itself.

In A Popular Account of Criminal Justice from the District Attorney’s Office, Train strips away the myths surrounding crime and punishment to reveal a system shaped as much by human judgment, politics, error, and improvisation as by law. Murder cases, frauds, police practices, courtroom tactics, unreliable witnesses, legal absurdities, and the psychology of criminals all come under his sharp and often surprisingly modern scrutiny.

Far ahead of his time, Train questions whether criminal law truly reflects morality, whether prisons reform offenders, and whether society punishes the most dangerous forms of wrongdoing at all. His observations on violent crime, corruption, prosecutorial discretion, media sensationalism, and unequal justice remain startlingly relevant in the twenty-first century.

This new edition, edited and introduced by Graeme R. Newman, situates Train’s classic work within today’s debates over mass incarceration, overcriminalization, white-collar crime, police power, and the continuing struggle to balance public safety with individual rights. More than a historical curiosity, this book is a penetrating exploration of the enduring contradictions of criminal justice—then and now.

Combining legal history, criminology, courtroom drama, and social criticism, A Popular Account of Criminal Justice will appeal to readers interested in true crime, law, policing, criminology, criminal procedure, and the evolution of modern justice systems.

Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026. p.334.

By Steven M. Klepper

The Supreme Court of Maryland adopted the federal Daubert standard for admission of expert testimony in 2020.1 Given that Daubert rulings are discretionary, the abuse-of-discretion standard governs appellate review of expert testimony.2 During the summer of 2023, the Supreme Court of Maryland issued three opinions holding that trial judges abused their discretion—at least in part—when they admitted or excluded expert testimony.3 In the last of the three cases, Justice Brynja Booth authored a concurring opinion noting how the Court was applying less deference than in other discretionary contexts, and she urged her colleagues to clarify the nature of review.4 This article posits that Daubert errors fall into two main categories: procedural and substantive. Procedural errors occur when a trial court misunderstands an aspect of the Daubert framework.5 In effect, the trial judge has misread Maryland Rule 5-702, which governs expert testimony. 6 A misreading of an evidentiary rule is a legal error that is reviewed de novo, meaning without deference. 7 Substantive error occurs when a trial judge follows the Daubert framework but reaches a result to which an appellate courts cannot defer because either the trial judge has abused their8 discretion in the traditionalsense or the Supreme Court of Maryland has decided to draw a boundary circumscribing all trial judges’ discretion.9 Such vocabulary not only accurately describes the nature of judicial review but also reduces friction between trial judges and appellate courts

By Rosa Gibson

In Alaska, pretrial detainees comprise much of the state’s prison population. Electronic monitoring—made possible by recent bail reforms—provides a pathway to pretrial release for those who cannot afford to pay bail. Using GPS data, the Pretrial Enforcement Division can monitor the location of a releasee’s ankle monitor for supervisory purposes. But when law enforcement seeks warrantless access to that data to investigate crimes other than the one for which a releasee is awaiting trial, that intrusion raises concerns under Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy. This Note argues that the Alaska judiciary, which is best positioned to guard the privacy of pretrial releasees in this area, should treat warrantless searches of this type as per se unreasonable, absent narrow exceptions. This Note posits that a reverse location search of pretrial electronic monitoring data for general investigative purposes constitutes a “search” under both the U.S. and Alaska Constitutions. Through the contextualization of Alaska’s use of electronic monitoring, analysis of the impact of Alaska’s constitutional right to privacy on the search inquiry, and analogy to the constitutionally suspect geofence search, this Note demonstrates that requiring a warrant for this data for investigative purposes is consistent with Alaska’s search-and-seizure jurisprudence. Acknowledging the inherent tradeoffs involved in pretrial release, this Note strives to establish a workable middle ground where law enforcement can access sophisticated tools in the interest of public safety without abandoning the privacy values the Alaskan people have enshrined in their constitution.

By  Beth Colgan and Jordan B. Wood

This Article provides a comprehensive statewide study of a practice by which courts order defendants to pay financial sanctions—fines, costs, and probation fees—by serving terms of incarceration. Though several states authorize these practices, to date, very little is known about the extent to which payment via incarceration occurs and the different ways it is employed. This Article examines the use of the practice in Nebraska, where it is colloquially referred to as “sitting out.” Our study specifically focuses on all misdemeanor cases in Nebraska county courts with judgments (an adjudication of guilt and/or sentencing) during the year 2019.

This study examines the ways in which payment via incarceration is consistent with and diverges from the archetypal “modern debtors’ prison,” in which penalties related to the nonpayment of fines are widespread, imposed against people of limited means and particularly people of color, and which carry the risk that the inherent revenue-generating qualities of financial sanctions will pervert crime policy.

We find that Nebraska’s practices are consistent with that archetype in that payment via incarceration is deeply integrated into the jurisdiction’s legal systems as evident through its widespread use. We discover that courts ordered 10,027 defendants to pay financial sanctions via incarceration in over a quarter of all misdemeanor cases in our dataset, an alarmingly high rate. Those defendants also sat out a notably high amount of financial debt—$2,105,462 in the aggregate. At $150 per day (the rate at which Nebraska credits incarceration against financial debt), the defendants in our study spent a minimum of 14,036 days in Nebraska county jails to pay off fines, costs, and probation fees.

The results of the study are also consistent with a second archetype— that in modern debtors’ prisons, people of limited means, and particularly people of color, are subjected to financial sanctions they have no meaningful ability to pay and punished for their poverty when payment is not forthcoming. Our findings illustrate that many defendants who were subjected to sitting out were convicted for offenses frequently linked to poverty and many were declared indigent by the court for the purposes of appointing counsel. Further, the cases in our database exhibit troubling racial disparities.

Other findings, however, complicate the narrative surrounding modern debtors’ prisons, especially with regard to revenue-generation incentives of government actors. On its face, sitting out appears to undermine the idea that government actors are motivated by revenue generation. Unlike systems in which the debt remains outstanding, when a defendant is ordered to sit out financial sanctions, the debt is paid off by the incarceration. This ensures that revenues are never secured, while leaving the jurisdiction to bear the expense of incarceration. To investigate this issue and track how money moves into and out of government coffers when sitting out is employed, we create an original typology of the various forms of payment via incarceration useful for studying Nebraska’s system and those in other jurisdictions. What we find is geographic diversity in the mechanisms for sitting out that carry different fiscal implications.

After presenting the study’s results, we conclude by discussing the key takeaways of our research, its limitations, and several law and policy implications that open potential avenues for future research.

By Jennifer Smith and Jeremiah Bourgeois

The criminal justice system is centered around three major participants: a prosecutor, a defense attorney, and a defendant. Each plays a role in the ensuing adversarial process, and each has their own perceptual lenses and interests. The prosecutor, for instance, seeks a conviction and focuses more on evidence of guilt than on innocence. The defense attorney endeavors to bring about a verdict of not guilty or a favorable plea rather than seeking to promote public safety. As for the defendant, he often cannot perceive the factors that led to his criminality, and he has neither the insight nor the will necessary to change his life’s trajectory. After sentencing, the criminal justice system in Washington State provides very few mechanisms for any of these participants to undo the result, even after decades have passed.2A prosecutor, who “has the Jennifer Smith Jeremiah Bourgeoisresponsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate,”  may later come to question the fairness of the sentence. However, until 2020, prosecutors lacked the power to reduce the term of confinement. A defense attorney may belatedly find mitigating evidence, but procedural rules foreclose the opportunity to have the defendant resentenced.As for a defendant who underwent an incredible transformation after a substantial period of confinement, the only hope for an early release is the unlikely possibility of a sentence commutation. The absence of an effective means to undo injustice has long been the status quo of punishment in the State of Washington.

By Ohioans To Stop Executions

Ohio’s cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment sys­tem has come into sharp focus with the release of two reports that exam­ine four decades of the state’s death penal­ty record and draw stark­ly dif­fer­ent con­clu­sions about the future of Ohio’s death penal­ty. On March 30, Ohioans to Stop Executions (OTSE) pub­lished Beyond Reasonable Doubt: Confronting the Wrongful Conviction Crisis in the State of Ohio, doc­u­ment­ing the record of mis­takes and errors that result­ed in 12 exon­er­a­tions. “The death penal­ty in Ohio is a sys­tem defined more by its capac­i­ty for error than its pur­suit of jus­tice,” the report states, con­clud­ing, “It’s time for Ohio to end its death penal­ty.” Two days lat­er, out­go­ing Attorney General Dave Yost released his eighth and final Capital Crimes Report, call­ing the state’s years-long pause on exe­cu­tions “a mock­ery of the jus­tice sys­tem” and com­plain­ing that Ohio has pro­vid­ed death-sen­tenced pris­on­ers with “more than their fair share of due process.” AG Yost urges law­mak­ers to pass leg­is­la­tion that would allow exe­cu­tions to resume.

Beyond Reasonable Doubt cen­ters on data OTSE argues Ohioans can no longer ignore: since the state rein­stat­ed cap­i­tal pun­ish­ment in 1981, it has exe­cut­ed 56 peo­ple and exon­er­at­ed 12 oth­ers from death row — mark­ing one exon­er­a­tion for every five exe­cu­tions car­ried out. Collectively, OTSE notes that these 12 men lost 245 years of their lives to wrong­ful impris­on­ment. “It turns out that Ohio has a mas­sive wrong­ful con­vic­tion prob­lem, far worse than any­one imag­ined,” said Kevin Werner, Executive Director of OTSE. Mr. Werner added that “[a]ttempts to restart exe­cu­tions will result in the exe­cu­tions of inno­cent peo­ple, and no one wants that.”

In addi­tion to the 12 indi­vid­u­als who have been wrong­ful­ly sen­tenced to death, Beyond Reasonable Doubt iden­ti­fies an addi­tion­al 12 “shad­ow exon­er­a­tions,” or cas­es in which indi­vid­u­als faced cap­i­tal indict­ments and were sen­tenced to life in prison rather than death and were lat­er proven inno­cent. The same issues are present in both groups of 12 cas­es: pros­e­cu­to­r­i­al mis­con­duct, coerced tes­ti­mo­ny, false eye­wit­ness iden­ti­fi­ca­tions, and false or mis­lead­ing foren­sic evi­dence. “The records of the 24 men exon­er­at­ed after cap­i­tal indict­ments are no ‘suc­cess sto­ries’ of the legal sys­tem; they are indict­ments of it,” the report states. “They prove that in Ohio, the dif­fer­ence between a free man and a dead man is often noth­ing more than a lucky pub­lic records request or the per­sis­tence of postconviction counsel.”

By James Stone

For incarcerated people litigating pro se, the civil discovery process is vitally important. When imprisoned litigants lack meaningful access to discovery, their cases become swearing contests they are bound to lose, and wrongdoing in prison goes unaddressed. Yet for these same plaintiffs, civil discovery is defunct. The vast majority of incarcerated plaintiffs, including those with promising or meritorious claims, are unable to navigate either to or through litigation’s discovery phase. Part diagnosis and part treatment, this Article is the first to explore in depth how the discovery process—as designed and implemented—fails those pursuing civil-rights claims against their jailers, betraying both a crisis in prison litigation and a failure of our procedural regime.

Relying on both case research and extensive interviews with federal judges, staff attorneys, prison rights lawyers, formerly incarcerated people, and prison officials, the Article chronicles prison discovery’s written and unwritten rules and their failures. It begins with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which map awkwardly or not at all onto prison litigation. It then discusses the much broader amalgam of practical impediments to evidence gathering in prison. These include profound informational asymmetries, resource disparities, and hostility between prison defendants—who create and control much of the evidence relevant to incarcerated people’s claims—and imprisoned plaintiffs.

The Article then scrutinizes the dockets and filings of two hundred recent federal cases arising out of two different prisons in two different districts: Louisiana State Penitentiary in Louisiana and Menard Correctional Center in Illinois. The research reveals startling disparities between the districts’ case-management decisions and cultures, resulting in stark differences in prison litigants’ discovery prospects. Incarcerated litigants’ current chances of evidencing and vindicating claims may be largely contingent on the district in which their prison sits—what some incarcerated people call “justice by jurisdiction.” Arguing that this situation is both untenable and preventable, the Article suggests multiple concrete avenues for reform.

By Nicholas Barnes

Over the last decade, organized criminal violence has reached unprecedented levels and has caused as much violent death globally as direct armed conflict. Nonetheless, the study of organized crime in political science remains limited because these organizations and their violence are not viewed as political. Building on recent innovations in the study of armed conflict, I argue that organized criminal violence should no longer be segregated from related forms of organized violence and incorporated within the political violence literature. While criminal organizations do not seek to replace or break away from the state, they have increasingly engaged in the politics of the state through the accumulation of the means of violence itself. Like other non-state armed groups, they have developed variously collaborative and competitive relationships with the state that have produced heightened levels of violence in many contexts and allowed these organizations to gather significant political authority. I propose a simple conceptual typology for incorporating the study of these organizations into the political violence literature and suggest several areas of future inquiry that will illuminate the relationship between violence and politics more generally.

Perspectives on Politics. 2017;15(4):967-987.

By Renato Rivera Rhon | Gabriel Funari

The Southern Cone tri-border area —comprising Ciudad del Este (Paraguay), Foz do Iguaçu (Brazil) and Puerto Iguazú (Argentina)— constitutes one of the most distinctive cross-border spaces in South America. Its particular geographical configuration combines densely populated urban areas with strategic riverine zones that facilitate intense cross-border circulation. More than 650,000 inhabitants coexist in an integrated social space marked by intense movement of people and one of the most heavily used commercial routes on the continent.

Within this environment of high mobility and commercial dynamism, smuggling has consolidated itself as the principal structuring axis of illicit economies. Since the creation of the free trade zone in Ciudad del Este in 1995, the region became a re-export centre for products destined mainly for the Brazilian market. Cigarettes, electronic products and alcoholic beverages enter Brazil as contraband, mobilized by local family clans and transnational illicit networks.

The report identifies a criminal ecosystem of coexistence characterized by interdependence, profitability and the historical continuity of illicit markets, sustained by commercial free movement, corruption and institutional fragility. Unlike other border areas in South America, the tri-border area presents high levels of criminal activity but low levels of violence, without armed disputes over territorial control or manifestations of criminal governance based on extortion or systematic coercion.

The report analyses the evolution of organized crime in the region, from the era of the “comboios” to the specialization of riverine routes and the “ant smuggling” model. It also examines the presence of the Primeiro Comando da Capital (PCC), which has consolidated control over clandestine ports in specific sectors of the Paraná River, without exercising generalized authority over the regional population.

Beyond smuggling, the report addresses cannabis trafficking produced in Paraguay, cocaine trafficking, arms trafficking and money laundering. Ciudad del Este emerges as a strategic financial node where commercial companies, real estate businesses, gambling houses and crypto-asset operations proliferate, facilitating the movement of illicit capital. The study also finds that the Argentinian side of the tri-border area has emerged as an increasingly prevalent smuggling hub over the past five years, generating new contraband routes and new security threats in the region.

The study is based on fieldwork and direct observation conducted in Ciudad del Este, Foz do Iguaçu and Puerto Iguazú, including interviews with members and former members of security forces, customs officials, judicial officials, academics and journalists specialized in the criminal dynamics of the tri-border area.

The Southern Cone tri-border area thus reveals a highly collaborative and adaptable criminal ecosystem, where smuggling functions as a base economy connecting flows, actors and routes used for drug trafficking, arms trafficking and other illegal goods. Its persistence is explained by its relatively non-violent character, informal regulation sustained by family clans and limited state capacities in the face of complex transnational dynamics.

Geneva: Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime.. 2026. 31p.

By 

The Sentencing Council (UK)

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales was established in April 2010 (under s118, of the Coroners and Justice Act 2009) in order to promote greater transparency and consistency in sentencing, while maintaining the independence of the judiciary. The Sentencing Council is an independent, non-departmental public body which is part of the Ministry of Justice’s (MoJ’s) family of arm’s-length bodies. The Sentencing Council has statutory duties to: • develop and issue sentencing guidelines and monitor their use • assess the effect of guidelines on sentencing practice • promote awareness among the public regarding the realities of sentencing, and publish information about sentencing practice in magistrates’ courts and the Crown Court The majority of sentencing guidelines issued by the Sentencing Council are ‘offence specific’, providing a step-by-step framework for sentencing a particular offence or group of offences. This begins with an initial assessment of seriousness where the sentencer will arrive at a sentence starting point outlined within the relevant guideline. The guideline then outlines possible aggravating and mitigating factors in relation to the offence or offender that a sentencer should consider, consideration of which may move the sentence starting point up or down. The guideline then provides guidance on a reduction for a guilty plea. The guideline may then include any other considerations that should be taken into account and finally the final sentence outcome. An example of an offence specific guideline can be seen for arson. Where there is no relevant offence specific guideline, the general guideline: overarching principles provides a sentencer with step-by-step guidance. The Sentencing Council also produces ‘overarching’ guidelines, which address specific issues that may arise across many different offences. These overarching guidelines do not typically follow the same format as offence guidelines. They instead contain guidance that can be applied across a range of offences and are expected to be used in conjunction withany relevant offence specific guidelines. The overarching guideline for sentencing offenders with mental disorder, developmental disorder, or neurological impairments, hereafter referred to as ‘the guideline’, was issued by the Sentencing Council in 2020 and is an example of an overarching guideline. It applies to all offenders aged 18 and over sentenced by courts in England and Wales. In accordance with the Sentencing Council’s statutory duties to assess the effect of guidelines on sentencing practice, the Sentencing Council has conducted a research review of this guideline. This explores sentencers’ understanding and application of the guideline. The following section outlines the details of the guideline. 

The Sentencing Council for England and Wales, 2026. 63p

By Nuria Sánchez , Guadalupe Blanco-Velasco , Linda M. Geven , Jaume Masip , Antonio L. Manzanero 

A comprehensive analysis of wrongful convictions in Spain was conducted. Out of 447 Supreme Court judgments made between 1996 and 2022, 243 cases involving a successful appeal made by a person claiming their innocence were examined in terms of the characteristics of wrongfully convicted individuals, the crime types, and the factors contributing to these judicial errors. An average rate of nine wrongful convictions per year was found, mostly for crimes against public safety and property, with a significant overrepresentation of foreign citizens. Legal professionals’ misconduct was identified as the main factor contributing to these wrongful convictions. The mean time between the judgment and the conviction being overturned was around 4.5 years. More than half of the cases were reopened due to evidence indicating that the alleged crime never occurred. While new evidence was the primary reason for reopening cases, only 3 % were reopened based on DNA evidence. The systematic methodology used in this research may serve as a model for future studies on wrongful convictions in other countries. To reduce wrongful convictions in Spain, several key measures must be implemented. Legal representation should be mandatory for all individuals accused of crimes, without exception. Legal professionals must receive enhanced training to minimize judicial errors. Furthermore, stricter forensic protocols should be established, and forensic experts must be properly accredited to prevent the misapplication of scientific evidence in legal proceedings. Additionally, reforms are needed to ensure that plea bargains are subject to more rigorous scrutiny, and that minor crimes are properly investigated.

Journal of Criminal Justice

Volume 103, March–April 2026,

By Aravind Boddupalli, LesLeigh D. Ford, Luisa Godinez-Puig

Criminal legal system fines and fees disproportionately impact Black households, entrenching poverty and creating significant barriers to economic mobility and wealth-building. These financial burdens, often imposed without regard to ability to pay, frequently lead to driver's license suspensions, increased debt, and incarceration, disrupting employment and housing stability. 

Urban Institute +3

Key Impacts on Black Communities:

• Disproportionate Burden: Black households face criminal legal fines and fees at the highest rates compared to other racial groups.

• Economic Mobility Barriers: These costs, often totaling hundreds or thousands of dollars, hinder the ability of Black families to build assets and improve their financial well-being.

• Cycle of Debt and Punishment: Inability to pay can lead to driver's license suspensions, preventing individuals from traveling to work, as well as additional fines, interest, and jail time.

• Family Well-being: As highlighted in this analysis by the Fines and Fees Justice Center, 57 percent of people with court debt reported food insecurity, while nearly 20 percent of those surveyed reported that they or a household member served time in jail due to an inability to pay.

• Housing and Employment: Debt-related penalties, such as suspended licenses or a criminal record for nonpayment, make securing stable housing and employment more difficult. 

  Urban Institute +4

Washington, DC:  Urban Institute, 2026. 7p.

By Vasiliki Georgoulas-Sherry & Hanna Hernandez

Collecting and analyzing data is essential for understanding and evaluating the court trends in Washington in past decades — as well as, at times, demographic differences such as disparities and disproportionalities — within the criminal justice system. Gaining insight into these trends and disparities is crucial for identifying and addressing criminal trends and systemic inequities. This issue continues to draw significant attention from a wide range of sources, including local, state, and federal agencies; advocacy organizations; policymakers; researchers; scholars; and community members. Ongoing evaluation of these trends and disparities is vital for promoting fairness, ensuring accountability, and advancing equity within the justice system. To respond to these impacts, the Criminal Justice Research & Statistics Center - the Washington Statistical Analysis Center (SAC) applied for and received the 2023 State Justice Statistics (SJS) grant from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) to assess this work. Through data from the Washington State Patrol (WSP) maintains the Computerized Criminal History (CCH), this report evaluates the court trends in the U.S. over the past 25 years, and the underlying court trends and demographic differences that impact the criminal justice system.

Olympia: Washington State Statistical Analysis Center, 2025. 46p.

By New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services Justice Lab

This report describes an analysis of racial and ethnic disparities in felony case processing in New York State at three processing points: arrests made in 2019, disposition of those arrests, and prison sentences imposed after convictions resulting from those arrests. 2019 was chosen as the benchmark because arrests made that year occurred prior to the implementation of landmark changes to the state’s bail, and evidence and information disclosure (discovery) laws. As a result, this analysis provides an overview of how the system functioned prior to those reforms and before the full impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which disrupted all facets of the state’s criminal justice system.

Albany: New York State, Division of Criminal Justice Services Justice Lab.. 2025. 22p.