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classic legal writing, detective fiction, social criticism, and courtroom drama, Justice on Trial is both a fascinating historical document and a strikingly modern meditation on crime, punishment, truth, and power.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  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 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 Matthew Brooks, Jessica Glynn, Hannah Fawcett, Aminah Barnes, Rachael Carew, David Errickson, Maria Livanou

Objectives

Prior research indicates that jury duty can be distressing for some jurors. This study examined: (1) the influence of prior trauma characteristics (type, exposure, time since trauma), medical fear and mental health difficulties on stress and emotional responses during a mock trial and 1 week later; and (2) associations between early stress reactions during a trial on subsequent stress and emotional reactivity after exposure to skeletal evidence and 1 week later.

Methods

Mock jurors (n = 180) completed baseline self-report mental health measures, read a summary of a murder case and were then exposed to graphic skeletal evidence. Stress and/or emotional responses were collected at baseline, after reading the case summary, before and after viewing the skeletal evidence and 7 days post-trial.

Results

Participants reported a wide range of prior traumatic experiences, with nearly half reporting pre-existing mental health difficulties. Average traumatic stress symptoms tripled from baseline to follow-up, with 44% of participants meeting PTSD-type criteria 7 days later. Medical fear and mental health difficulties were positively associated with some stress and/or emotional responses throughout the trial, with mixed findings concerning trauma characteristics, stress and emotional reactivity. Initial stress and emotional responses to case evidence were linked to later stress and emotional reactions, after accounting for pre-existing trauma and mental health characteristics.

Conclusions

Past trauma experiences, mental health difficulties and immediate stress responses during a trial can exacerbate emotional and stress reactions. Addressing the psychological impacts of pre-existing trauma symptoms could improve juror well-being during this important civic duty

By Brian Elderbroom, Peter Mayer, and Felicity Rose

Key Findings:

• Families with an immediate family member incarcerated spend an average of $4,195 annually to maintain contact and provide support; spouses/co-parents spend the most ($6,225 annually), followed by adult children ($5,470 annually).

• Families spend a total of $5.6 billion annually on commissary deposits, prison accounts, and other direct support for basic necessities and other items their family members might need.

  • Black family members spend $280 per month on direct support compared to $152 per month for white family members.

• On an annual basis, Black family members spend 2.5 times more ($8,005) than white family members ($3,251). 

  • Hispanic family members spend an average of $6,367 annually, and Native American family members spend an average of $6,464 annually.

This mixed-methods report quantifies the financial costs incurred by families when a loved one is incarcerated. Drawing on a nationally representative survey of adults with an immediate family member incarcerated for at least three months, supplemented by focus groups, the study documents both direct out-of-pocket spending and longer-term financial impacts. The central finding is that families pay large, recurring costs to maintain contact and provide for incarcerated loved ones, and they suffer persistent income losses that compound intergenerationally. The authors estimate that families collectively bear an annual financial burden of $348 billion. These costs are not distributed evenly: Black, Hispanic, Native American, and low-income families shoulder a disproportionate share, devoting more of their household resources to supporting incarcerated relatives. All in all, the findings highlight the far-reaching consequences of incarceration on family financial stability and intergenerational economic opportunities.

By Liz Komar

A broad and growing number of crimes are criminalized at both the state and federal levels. This means that either state or federal authorities, or both, can prosecute these offenses. Long-standing political pressure for federal lawmakers to demonstrate their responsiveness to constituent concerns about crime,1 even if the crimes in question are already subject to local prosecution, has led to a federeral criminal code that encompasses a wide array of local conduct. That broad reach comes at a significant cost

By Stephen J. Choi, Mitu Gulati

Curious about the merits of judges Donald Trump appointed in his first term as president, we looked in an earlier study at the performance during 2020 to mid-2023 of the judges Trump appointed as compared to those appointed by other presidents. On a set of three measures--productivity, quality and independence--the Trump judges performed as well, if not better, than judges appointed by Presidents Obama and Bush. As for President Biden's appointees, they did systematically worse than the Trump appointees. Biden judicial selections were, at the time we did our prior study, however, new judges. Maybe, we wondered, these judges would do better on our measures a year or two hence? What follows are our preliminary results on that question. Our short answer is that Trump judges continue to dominate the Biden judges. 

By Grady Bridges,  J.J. Prescott

This report investigates and estimates racial disparities in prosecutorial decision-making in the Washtenaw County Prosecutor’s Office (WCPO) from 2017 to 2022. The analysis relies on currently available data resources at the WCPO and examines decision-making at four different junctures in the prosecutorial process: 1) case approval (i.e., warrant authorization) and charge selection, 2) habitual-offender designation (under Michigan law), 3) plea bargaining, and 4) diversion and deferral opportunities. Racial disparities appear most visibly at the earliest stages of the criminal justice process, with People of Color substantially overrepresented in the warrant requests the WCPO receives from law enforcement. The data further indicate that, conditional on receiving a warrant request, the WCPO is somewhat more likely to charge People of Color with a crime, although the practical difference in charging rates is small. Furthermore, the analysis uncovers statistically significant racial differences in charging outcomes among defendants with at least one authorized warrant, with the WCPO charging People of Color with more total offenses and more severe offenses than white people on average. Interestingly, the data also indicate that People of Color fare somewhat better than white people with respect to habitual-offender designation, though the use of such designations by the WCPO in recent years is rare. Currently available data indicate no other notable racial disparities in WCPO decision-making during the period of study. Limitations in current data-collection practices represent the main impediment to further examination of WCPO decision-making. Improving and expanding data collection and organization efforts will allow the WCPO to 1) better understand how disparities arise at its early phases of prosecution (e.g., charging) and 2) further explore other decision-making junctures (including plea bargaining and diversion and deferral opportunities) where data are insufficiently available.

By Haoyao He  

 The phenomenon of delinquency among young people is one that is pervasive in the culture of today. Criminal laws in many countries frequently adopt unique procedures that are separate from those that are used to deal with adult delinquency when dealing with juveniles. These strategies are employed to deal with juveniles. It is because of the distinct psychological, physiological, and socialization levels that are linked with juveniles that this is the case. Not only does this unique scenario serve as an illustration of the humanitarian principles of criminal law, but it also serves as an illustration of the fundamental value orientation of giving precedence to the preservation and correction of the rights of children. In the framework of China's criminal law, the objective of this article is to analyze the legal underpinnings that underpin the specialized treatment of juvenile delinquency, as well as its institutional practice and process of optimization. Specifically, the study will focus on the treatment of juveniles who have committed crimes.

By William Downs

Who handles complaints against the police?

A member of the public can make a complaint if they are dissatisfied with the police. 

There are three crucial actors in the police complaints system:

• Professional standards departments (PSDs) are specialist teams based within every police force in England and Wales. They are responsible for handling most complaints for their force.

• The Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) is an independent body that oversees the police complaints system. It also conducts independent investigations into some of the most serious police complaints and conduct matters.

• Local policing bodies (either the police and crime commissioner or the deputy mayor for policing and crime, depending on the area) are responsible for monitoring their force’s complaint handling and conducting some complaint reviews.

By Steven Schuetz, et al.

  Context Service weapon activity, including instances where an officer’s firearm is drawn, pointed, or discharged, plays an important role in understanding events transpiring during a police–public encounter. Detection, documentation, and communication of these events in a way that is accurate, timely, and dependable is vital for enhancing transparency and accountability of law enforcement service weapon use. About this Report The National Institute of Justice (NIJ) requested the Criminal Justice Technology Testing and Evaluation Center (CJTTEC) to investigate the landscape of commercially available and emerging technologies that could meet this need. CJTTEC conducted a review of technologies capable of detecting when a service weapon has been unholstered, pointed, or discharged; documenting when a law enforcement officer discharges their service weapon (or initiating documentation such as body-worn camera (BWC) recordings in such incidents); and communicating the information to dispatchers. CJTTEC’s methodology to understand this technology landscape included secondary research (e.g., reviewing patents, trade literature, press releases, news articles, and publications) and primary research with technology experts, product representatives, and researchers. This brief provides a high-level summary of technology systems capable of documenting, detecting, and communicating service weapon activity, focusing specifically on technology integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Conclusion Although no single commercially available tool is capable of detecting, documenting, and communicating service weapon activity, law enforcement agencies may be able to rely on a suite of products to help them address these needs.  Key Takeaways ¡ Agencies are facing increased pressure to document service weapon activity. From 2015 through 2020, on average, an estimated 1,769 people were injured annually—979 fatally and 790 nonfatally— from shootings by police in the United States.1 Because of the impact that officer-involved shootings (OISs) have on the community, law enforcement agencies are facing increased public pressure and policy mandates to document service weapon activity. ¡ There is a need for tools or technologies that can objectively detect, document, and communicate service weapon activity. OISs are stressful incidents that can occur quickly and under poor visual circumstances, which can impact accurate documentation of events. Further, obtaining reliable service weapon activity data can be challenging because of noncompliance with body-worn camera (BWC) policies, lack of BWCs, or inaccurate witness and officer accounts. ¡ There is no single commercially available product that meets service weapon activity needs. No single product can currently (1) detect service weapon activity, such as recording actual shots fired in an incident involving law enforcement weapons; (2) document the activity, such as initiating BWC recordings; and (3) communicate information about service weapon activity to police dispatchers. ¡ Agencies can rely on a suite of products to address these needs or choose specific products, each with strengths and limitations. Available technologies may be integrated into or onto the weapon, in a holster, in a BWC, in a wearable device, or in environmental sensing tools. Weapon-integrated tools offer the most functionality to detect and document multiple types of service weapon activity during a use-of-force incident, but many of these products, such as those developed by Armaments Research Company and Yardarm, are not commercially available. These products often lack the capability to communicate updates in real-time with dispatch. Holster-integrated tools can sense officer unholstering activity, activate BWC, and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot detect activity related to pointing or firing a weapon. BWCs, activated by multiple types of triggers, can document audio and video of the incident and communicate with dispatch, but they cannot specifically detect officer firearm activities (e.g., weapon unholstering, pointing, gunshot detection). Wearable devices can detect officer firearm activities, document metadata, and communicate with dispatch, but most products are still in a development phase for law enforcement applications. Environmental sensing tools may detect and document activities transpiring within a certain area, including shots fired in an incident, and communicate information to dispatch, but they cannot detect or attribute gunshot activities specifically to an officer's service weapon. ¡ Technology advancements and independent testing, evaluation, and implementation research are needed to accelerate adoption. Technology developers are currently working through several technical hurdles and are leveraging insights from BWC to improve technology uptake. Some commercially available products have been evaluated for performance, but more studies are needed as technologies are further developed and released into the market.  

Criminal Justice Testing (and Evaluation Consortium, 2024. 15p.

By James Redden; Molly O'Donovan Dix

This technology brief is the first in a four-part series that explores artificial intelligence (AI) applications within the criminal justice system. This first brief frames AI, defines common AI terms, and offers a mental model for identifying AI use cases within the criminal justice system. While this brief provides examples of how AI might bring significant benefit to the criminal justice system, it also highlights risks that decision makers should consider when developing or deploying AI tools. Additional briefs provide greater consideration of AI in law enforcement, the criminal courts system, and corrections.   

  Key Takeaways ¡ AI will transform our personal, industrial, commercial, and civil realities in the years to come— enabling and challenging individuals involved in the justice system as well as in criminal activity. ¡ AI tools have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand capabilities across many criminal justice use cases; however, technical feasibility and operational realities need to be considered. ¡ AI systems carry inherent risk that decision makers need to understand. For example, AI technologies raise ethical and civil liberties questions that the criminal justice system and society at large will have to wrestle with in the years ahead. AI will bring changes to nearly every industry over the next decade. In fact, AI is already impacting our daily lives and is being built into the background of many of our daily activities—from facial recognition technologies that unlock our smartphones, to algorithms that recommend movies we might like, to virtual chatbots that handle our customer service inquiries. Forthe criminal justice system, AI presents opportunities along with significant risks. AI tools have the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand capabilities across many criminal justice use cases. Yet many criminal justice leaders have misconceptions about the capabilities and the level of investment required to create or deploy AI solutions for specific use cases

Research Triangle Park, NC:RTI International.,   . 

2020. 10p.

By Lisa N. Sacco, Zachary T. Neuhofer, Hassan Z. Sheikh

Change to Federal Definition of Hemp and Implications for Federal Enforcement

December 3, 2025 (IN12620)

On November 12, 2025, Congress and President Trump enacted a full-year FY2026 Agriculture appropriations act (P.L. 119-37, Division B), which contained a provision that reimposes federal controls over certain hemp products.

Both marijuana and hemp are varieties of the cannabis plant, and until 2018, hemp was considered to be marijuana as defined under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). From 1970 until 2018, the federal government's definition of marijuana included hemp and its derivatives, and widespread hemp production was generally prohibited. Under the Agriculture Improvement Act of 2018 (2018 farm bill; P.L. 115-334), Congress amended the CSA definition of marijuana to reflect the differences in the chemical and psychoactive properties between hemp and marijuana, but it referred only to the level of delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to distinguish between them and not the other cannabinoids found within the cannabis plant. Some interpreted this definition of marijuana and the new federal definition of hemp to mean that products containing less than 0.3% delta-9 THC in addition to other psychoactive compounds would not be considered marijuana and would legally be considered hemp—the so-called farm bill loophole

Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2025. 3p.

Ashley Spalding, Pam Thomas, Patience Martin, Scott West and Kaylee Raymer | July 8, 2025

Thousands of provisions in Kentucky state law, and untold local ordinances, make up a vast, hidden web of criminal legal system fines and fees that trap many people in a cycle of long-term debt and incarceration. In a poor state like Kentucky, owing a few hundred dollars in fines and fees for a minor offense can all too easily ensnare a person indefinitely in the criminal system and result in lost income and employment, homelessness, poor health, and family instability, among other consequences. As of 2019, Kentuckians owed at least $91 million in fines and fees debt.

2025. 27p.

Richard J. Condon Commissioner Division Of Criminal Justice Services

Police Use of Deadly Force in New York State: A Report to Governor Mario M. Cuomo (1985) offers one of the earliest systematic examinations of how and why lethal force was deployed by law enforcement across the state during a period of intense public scrutiny. Commissioned at a time when debates over police accountability, training standards, and civil rights were gaining national prominence, the report evaluates legal frameworks, departmental policies, and patterns of police–citizen encounters to assess the necessity and proportionality of deadly force incidents. Drawing on case reviews, agency surveys, and statistical analyses, it seeks to identify structural weaknesses and propose reforms aimed at reducing unnecessary violence and strengthening public trust.

Viewed from today’s perspective, the report stands as an important precursor to contemporary discussions about policing and the appropriate limits of state power. In the decades since its publication, nationwide movements such as Black Lives Matter, advances in data transparency, increased availability of video evidence, and evolving constitutional standards have intensified scrutiny of deadly force practices. Modern debates continue to revolve around issues the 1985 report identified early on: the need for clear and consistent use‑of‑force policies, robust training in de‑escalation, improved data collection, and stronger mechanisms of accountability. As current policymakers and communities grapple with how to balance public safety, civil liberties, and equitable treatment, this historical report offers valuable insight into the longstanding nature of these challenges and the enduring need for thoughtful, evidence‑based reform.

If you'd like, I can also turn this into a full foreword, integrate it into a larger document, or tailor the tone for academic, policy, or public audiences.

NY. Division Of Criminal Justice Services. 1985. p.273.

By M. D. Vattel. Introduction by Graeme R. Newman

A foundational work of international law, still resonant today.

First published in the eighteenth century and issued in authoritative English editions throughout the nineteenth, The Law of Nations by Emer de Vattel shaped how statesmen, jurists, and diplomats understood the rights and duties of sovereign powers. In this monumental treatise, Vattel applies the principles of natural law to the real conduct of nations, addressing war and peace, treaties and alliances, commerce and neutrality, diplomacy, and the limits of lawful power.

Rejecting both utopian idealism and brute realpolitik, Vattel argues that true national interest is inseparable from justice, restraint, and respect for sovereignty. Nations, like individuals, are bound by moral obligations arising from their coexistence in a shared international society. His careful analysis of war, intervention, and treaty obligations established enduring standards that influenced constitutional debates, foreign policy doctrine, and the development of modern international law.

This edition preserves a work that continues to illuminate contemporary conflicts and global challenges. Clear-eyed, systematic, and profoundly influential, The Law of Nations remains essential reading for anyone seeking to understand how lawful order, moral principle, and power intersect in the affairs of nations.

The theses advanced in The Law of Nations remain strikingly relevant to contemporary international disputes, particularly those involving intervention, recognition of governments, and claims of humanitarian necessity. Vattel’s insistence on sovereignty as the cornerstone of international order places clear limits on the legitimacy of external interference in the internal affairs of states. While he allows that extreme cases—such as manifest tyranny threatening the very existence of a people—may raise difficult moral questions, he consistently warns that powerful states are prone to disguise ambition and interest under the language of justice.

This caution is especially pertinent when considering recent controversies surrounding efforts by the United States to promote regime change in Venezuela, including diplomatic, economic, and political measures aimed at displacing the government of Nicolás Maduro. From a Vattelian perspective, such actions raise fundamental questions about lawful authority, the limits of collective judgment, and the distinction between moral condemnation and legal right. Vattel argues that no nation may unilaterally assume the role of judge over another sovereign without undermining the mutual independence on which international society depends. To do so, he suggests, risks converting international law into a mere instrument of power.

At the same time, Vattel’s framework does not deny the reality of gross misrule or humanitarian suffering. Rather, it demands rigorous scrutiny of motives and means. Economic coercion, diplomatic isolation, and recognition of alternative authorities would, in his analysis, need to be justified not by ideological preference or strategic advantage, but by clear evidence that such measures genuinely serve the common good of nations and do not erode the general security of the international system. His emphasis on proportionality, necessity, and respect for established sovereignty stands in tension with modern practices of intervention that rely on contested doctrines of legitimacy.

Viewed through this lens, contemporary debates over Venezuela illustrate the enduring force of Vattel’s central warning: that the stability of international relations depends less on the moral claims of individual powers than on shared restraint. His work reminds modern readers that the erosion of sovereignty in one case—however rhetorically justified—sets precedents that may ultimately weaken the legal protections upon which all nations, strong and weak alike, rely.

P.H. Nicklitn etc. Philadelphia. 1829. Read-Me.Org Inc. New York-Philadelphia-Australia. 2026 p.424.