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Notwithstanding the strict federal control of marijuana, in recent years, many states have repealed state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.

By The Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Data Lab

The Conviction Integrity Unit (“CIU”) was established in 2018 by District Attorney Larry Krasner. The CIU’s predecessor, the Conviction Review Unit (“CRU”), which was established in 2014, had operated for a number of years with only a small staff and a narrow mandate. The CRU only reviewed claims of actual innocence, and rarely undertook investigations into whether new evidence existed that could prove those claims. Cases where the defendant had confessed were largely excluded from consideration, as if false confessions (which occur in a quarter of DNA exonerations nationally) were always reliable. Today, the CIU is an independent unit within the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office, reporting directly to the District Attorney, and involved in one out of every ten homicide exonerations in the country. When District Attorney Krasner transformed the unit from the CRU to the CIU, he immediately tasked it with a broader mandate: not only to review past convictions for credible claims of actual innocence but also to review claims of wrongful conviction and secondarily to consider sentencing inequities. Early in his first term, District Attorney Krasner merged the CIU with the Office’s Special Investigations Unit (“SIU”). The two units share a common focus on investigating official misconduct, and their cases frequently overlap. However, as the CIU and SIU personnel have grown and expanded their caseloads, the units were separated in the summer of 2020 to better accommodate each unit’s mission

The CIU’s mission is to ensure that justice is served by prosecutors at the Philadelphia District Attorney’s Office and to remedy the Office’s wrongful convictions. Pennsylvania prosecutors have limited post-con viction discretion in general and they have no legal authority to set aside convictions in the interest of justice. Since CIU prosecutors cannot unilaterally dismiss an existing conviction or free anyone we believe to be wrongfully incarcerated, the CIU makes a recommendation to the court that the petitioner be granted a new trial whenever its independent investigation leads it to conclude that a conviction lacks integrity. If warranted, the CIU will move to withdraw the charges against the petitioner or reduce the charges so that an equitable sentence can be imposed. In cases that are ultimately withdrawn or dismissed, the CIU will investigate and prosecute the actual perpetrator where feasible. However, given the inherent difficulties involved in investigating decades-old crimes where the original investigation was either botched or inadequate, identifying the real perpetrator and bringing that person to justice may be impossible. To date, the Philadelphia Police Department has declined to re-open and re-investigate old cases following exonerations. For example, Walter Ogrod was exonerated of a 1988 murder in 2020. While investigating the case, the CIU identified two alternate suspects. As of almost a year after Ogrod’s exoneration, however, police had not even begun the process of re-opening the underlying murder case. Additionally, the CIU believes that conviction integrity is more than simply fixing past mistakes and exposing misconduct. It also requires policies and processes to prevent future injustices. With this aim, the CIU helps craft office-wide policies and trainings designed to reduce the number of future wrongful convictions.

This report encompasses exonerations, commutations, and sentencing adjustments from January 1, 2018 through June 15, 2021. This report includes data on cases submitted to the CIU, active investigations, cases declined or closed, and cases awaiting review that are accurate as of May 31, 2021. Experts who have opined on the issue of best practices for conviction integrity units agree that in order to increase public understanding of and trust in such units, offices should publish annual reports detailing the results of their conviction and case reviews and actions taken. This report is the first report issued by the CIU under District Attorney Krasner and is a first-term report, rather than an annual report. Although annual reports were contemplated, they were postponed as a result of multiple factors ,including lack of resources, internal technology deficits, case load, and the COVID-19 pandemic.

Philadelphia District Attorney's Office, Data Lab. 2021. 47p.

By Kuc, Oktawian

Recent decades have brought international and municipal courts much closer together and induced meaningful cooperation. This holds true also for the International Court of Justice and domestic judicial institutions as they engage actively in an inter-judicial dialogue, particularly on the normative level. Due to the impact of globalisation and internationalisation, the World Court has expanded its jurisprudence to also accommodate references and analysis of external judicial organs and their pronouncements. Likewise, ICJ decisions are referred to and consulted by municipal courts as authoritative statements of international norms or assistance in fact determination. This monograph examines this inter-judicial dialogue in a comprehensive manner by identifying and analysing all its aspects as evidenced in respective jurisprudence. Surprisingly, the mutual conversation in judicial decisions between the World Court and national judicial institutions has drawn little attention from international legal scholarship, and the book is designed to fill this lacuna.

New York; London: Routledge, 2022.

By Rebecca Tiger

The number of people incarcerated in the U.S. now exceeds 2.3 million, due in part to the increasing criminalization of drug use: over 25% of people incarcerated in jails and prisons are there for drug offenses. Judging Addicts examines this increased criminalization of drugs and the medicalization of addiction in the U.S. by focusing on drug courts, where defendants are sent to drug treatment instead of prison. Rebecca Tiger explores how advocates of these courts make their case for what they call “enlightened coercion,” detailing how they use medical theories of addiction to justify increased criminal justice oversight of defendants who, through this process, are defined as both “sick” and “bad.” Tiger shows how these courts fuse punitive and therapeutic approaches to drug use in the name of a “progressive” and “enlightened” approach to addiction. She critiques the medicalization of drug users, showing how the disease designation can complement, rather than contradict, punitive approaches, demonstrating that these courts are neither unprecedented nor unique, and that they contain great potential to expand punitive control over drug users. Tiger argues that the medicalization of addiction has done little to stem the punishment of drug users because of a key conceptual overlap in the medical and punitive approaches—that habitual drug use is a problem that needs to be fixed through sobriety. Judging Addicts presses policymakers to implement humane responses to persistent substance use that remove its control entirely from the criminal justice system and ultimately explores the nature of crime and punishment in the U.S. today.

New York; London: NYU Press,  2012

By Allison P. Harris

How does racial diversity impact institutional outcomes and (in)equality? Discussions about diversity usually focus on how individuals’ identities shape their behavior, but diversity is a group-level characteristic. Scholars must, therefore, consider the relationship between group composition and the individual decisions that shape institutional outcomes. Using felony data from a large U.S. court system, I explore the relationship between racial diversity among the judges comprising a court and individual judges’ decisions. I find that as the percent of Black judges in a courthouse increases white judges are less likely to render incarceration sentences in cases with Black defendants. Increases in racial diversity decrease the Black–white gap in the probability of incarceration by up to 7 percentage points. However, I find no relationship between judge’s racial identities and disparities in their decisions. This study highlights the importance of conceptualizing diversity as a group characteristic and the relationship between institutional context and outcomes.

American Political Science Review, 2023, 16 pages

By Thomas Frampton

Supreme Court opinions involving race and the jury invariably open with the Fourteenth Amendment, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, or landmark cases like Strauder v. West Virginia (1880). Legal scholars and historians unanimously report that free people of color did not serve as jurors, in either the North or South, until 1860. In fact, this Article shows, Black men served as jurors in antebellum America decades earlier than anyone has previously realized. While instances of early Black jury service were rare, campaigns insisting upon Black citizens’ admission to the jury-box were not. From the late 1830s onward, Black activists across the country organized to abolish the all-white jury. They faced, and occasionally overcame, staunch resistance. This Article uses jury lists, court records, convention minutes, diaries, bills of sale, tax rolls, and other overlooked primary sources to recover these forgotten efforts, led by activists who understood the jury-box to be both a marker and maker of citizenship. A broader historical perspective—one that centers Black activists in the decades before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868—offers a new way of thinking about the relationship between race, rights, citizenship, and the jury.

 New York University Law Review, 2024, 66 pages

By Mona Lynch and Emily V. Shaw

Building on research demonstrating significant differences in how Black and White Americans view law enforcement, this study assesses how views of police shape potential jurors’ decision-making. The authors conclude that it is critical that citizens are not prevented from being seated on juries due to skepticism about police, given the risk of disproportionate exclusion of Black potential jurors. The legal processes relevant to juror excusals need to be reconsidered to ensure that views of police, rooted in actual experience or knowledge about the problems with fair and just policing, are not used to disproportionately exclude persons of color, or to seat juries overrepresented by people who blindly trust police. A sample of 649 Black and White jury-eligible U.S. citizens were exposed a federal drug conspiracy case in which the primary evidence against the defendant is provided by an FBI agent and an informant cooperating with the agent, in which a Black defendant is being tried, and where the informant-witness race (Black or White) was varied. Participants determined verdict, evaluated evidence, and completed additional measures. Results indicated that Black participants were significantly less likely to convict than White participants, especially in the White informant condition; rated the law enforcement witness as less credible; and viewed police more negatively across three composite measures. Exploratory analysis of how juror race and gender interacted indicates Black women largely drove racial differences in verdicts. Perceptions of police legitimacy mediated the relationship between juror race and verdict choice

Race and Justice Volume: Online Dated: 2023 Pages: 1-25

By R. Michael Cassidy

Disciplining individual prosecutors will never be enough to overcome the multifarious incentives prosecutors have to cut corners to secure convictions. Although bar discipline against prosecutors is increasing in frequency, professional regulators tend to focus on individual actors rather than paying attention to systemic failures.

No single instance of prosecutorial misconduct—revealed perhaps by the reversal of a criminal case or the exoneration of an innocent defendant—can ever be fully explained by the deeds of a lone actor without looking at who establishes enforcement priorities, who sets office policies, and who does the training. Leaders in the office are usually involved, either by omission (failing to catch an error) or commission (creating an office culture where ethical lapses are tolerated or even encouraged).

The predominance of collective action and shared responsibility in business organizations often makes it difficult to pinpoint criminal liability. That challenge is addressed through the “responsible corporate officer” doctrine in criminal law, which holds executive-level individuals accountable for the wrongdoing to which they contributed, whether through commission or omission. Prosecutor’s offices are organizations with structures and incentives not dissimilar to that of a corporation. Because existing frameworks for addressing prosecutorial misconduct in the criminal justice system are ineffective, bar regulators should borrow from the responsible corporate officer doctrine by more aggressively enforcing Rule 5.1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct.

The notion that supervisory attorneys must be more actively involved in their colleagues’ ethical decisions and conduct has been recognized by the bar since the adoption of ABA Model Rule 5.1 in 1983, but the rule remains undertheorized by scholars and underutilized by disciplinary authorities. This article draws on important parallels between the responsible corporate officer doctrine and Rule 5.1 to explain why enforcement of professional discipline against leaders in a prosecutor’s office is necessary to incentivize more rigorous supervision and training. The author scrutinizes two recent cases in Colorado and Massachusetts where bar regulators have successfully utilized Rule 5.1 to discipline leaders in a prosecutor’s office for failing adequately to supervise the conduct of junior associates. The author then advocates for an even more expansive use of Rule 5.1 to force head prosecutors to adopt written, transparent, and publicly available policies and procedures. Finally, the author discusses three recurring and highly intractable problems of prosecutorial discretion that could benefit from comprehensive office policy manuals: grand jury practice, disclosure of exculpatory evidence; and use of cooperating witnesses.

Oregon Law Review, Vol. 102, 2024, Boston College Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 614, 37 p

By  Jana Hrdinova, Dexter Ridgway, Douglas A. Berman and Peter Leasure

Ohio Senate Bill 288 (134th G.A.) created Ohio Revised Code Section (2953.39) to allow prosecutors to initiate sealing or expungement actions on behalf of defendants previously convicted of low-level controlled substance offenses. After passage of this new law, the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center at The Ohio State University surveyed all elected or appointed prosecutors in Ohio to gauge their office's interest and willingness to initiate record sealing or expungement applications on behalf of people who have been previously convicted of a low-level controlled substance offense. Overall, about 12% of respondents stated that they were willing to pursue prosecutor-initiated sealing for low-level controlled substance offenses. For those who reported that they were unlikely to pursue prosecutor-initiated sealing, common explanations for not doing so included the lack of staffing resources, the lack of financial resources, the lack of data, the belief it is not the responsibility of prosecutors, and the sufficiency of the defendant-initiated system

Drug Enforcement and Policy Center. August 2023, 19pg