By Claire Austin

In the U.S., death row is made up of a disproportionate number of black persons. In capital trials, black defendants often face all white juries. The deep-rooted racial discrimination in the justice system impacts jury selection because prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors from the jury panel. As the law stands today, the Sixth Amendment guarantee of an impartial jury made up of a fair representation of the jury applies only to the pool of jurors called in for jury service, not those who are actually selected to hear the case. This comment analyzes the Supreme Court decision, Holland v. Illinois 493 U.S. 474 (1990), which held that the Sixth Amendment does not prevent prosecutors from striking potential jurors based on their race. In doing so, the Court missed an opportunity to provide meaningful relief to black capital defendants who faced all-white juries. This comment argues for the reversal of Holland, extension of Sixth Amendment protections, and a change in the framework for questioning the use of peremptory challenges to remove black jurors.

Marquette Benefits and Social Welfare Law Review, 25 Marq. Ben. and Soc. Welfare L. Rev. 59 (2023)

By Equal Justice Initiative

Race and the Jury: Illegal Discrimination in Jury Selection, released online July 27, 2021, places the continuing illegal exclusion of jurors of color in its historical context as “a continuing legacy of our history of racial injustice,” documenting the country’s “long history of tolerating racial bias in jury selection and a continuing indifference to correcting widespread underrepresentation of people of color on juries.” The report, a follow up to the organization’s 2010 report, Illegal Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection, details the numerous factors that contribute to ongoing jury discrimination today, and what EJI describes as the “persistent and widespread” impact it continues to have on the U.S. legal system.

While racial discrimination in jury selection is present throughout the criminal legal system, the report finds that it has especially pernicious effects in capital trials. “In cases where the death penalty is a possible punishment, the absence of meaningful representation on juries shapes sentencing outcomes, making them less reliable and credible,” the report explains. “The effect is greatest for non-white defendants, as studies show that less representative juries convict and sentence Black defendants to death at significantly higher rates than white defendants. White jurors are also less likely to consider critical mitigating evidence supporting a life sentence, rather than the death penalty, for Black defendants.”

EJI says illegal jury discrimination “persists because those who perpetrate or tolerate racial bias — including trial and appellate courts, defense lawyers, lawmakers, and prosecutors — act with impunity. Courts that fail to create jury lists that fairly represent their communities face no repercussions. Prosecutors who unlawfully strike Black people from juries don’t get fined, sanctioned, or held accountable.”

To redress the problem, EJI recommends that courts and legislatures remove procedural barriers to reviewing claims of jury discrimination, adopt policies and practices that commit to fully representative jury pools, hold accountable decision makers who engage in racially discriminatory jury selection practices, and strengthen the standard of review of jury discrimination claims. However, EJI says, only a few states “have recognized the problem and implemented reforms or initiated studies” and “[m]ost states have done nothing.”

Montgomery, AL: Equal Justice Initiative, 2021. 107p.

Accountability: How Qualified Immunity Shields a Wide Range of Government Abuses, Arbitrarily Thwarts Civil Rights, and Fails to Fulfill Its Promises

By Jason Tiezzi, Robert McNamara, and Elyse Smith Pohl

Qualified immunity is perhaps America’s most controversial legal doctrine, erupting into the national consciousness during debate over police misconduct in 2020. Created by the U.S. Supreme Court four decades ago, the doctrine protects government officials from being sued for violating constitutional rights—unless victims can show those rights are “clearly established.” In practice, this often means pinpointing a published opinion from the Supreme Court or the federal appellate court in their jurisdiction finding the same conduct in the same circumstances unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court intends for qualified immunity to give government officials leeway to make reasonable mistakes—especially in tense or dangerous situations requiring quick thinking—without facing lengthy litigation, onerous discovery, or financial ruin. By insisting rights be clearly established to receive protection, the Court aims to put officials on notice of conduct to avoid before they face such consequences. Critics counter, however, that qualified immunity sets too high a bar for victims of abuse to seek justice and winds up protecting officials who intentionally, maliciously, or unreasonably violate the Constitution. They also argue the doctrine does not work as the Court intends.

This study adds new evidence to the record using the largest ever collection of federal appellate cases, covering the 11-year period from 2010 through 2020. It is the first to use cutting-edge automated techniques to parse thousands of federal circuit court opinions and answer key questions about cases where government defendants claim qualified immunity—what kinds of officials and conduct it protects, its impact on civil rights cases, and whether the doctrine is achieving its aims.

Key findings include:

In the federal circuit courts, qualified immunity appeals have become more common.

From 2010 through 2020, at least 5,526 cases before federal circuit courts raised qualified immunity on appeal, an average of about 500 cases a year.

And from the first half of our study period to the second, the annual average of qualified immunity appeals grew by 20%, even as civil appeals of all types fell.

Contrary to popular belief, qualified immunity is not just about police accused of excessive force. It shields a wide array of government officials and conduct.

While police were the most common defendants, fully half of appeals featured other types of government officials, either alongside or instead of police. Prison officials made up the next largest share, but in more than one in five of all appeals, or 21%, defendants were neither police

nor prison officials. These other officials included mayors and city managers, university and school officials, prosecutors and judges, and child protective services workers.

Excessive force was alleged in just 27% of appeals, followed by false arrest at 25%; some alleged both. But the third largest category, alleged in 18% of appeals, encompassed violations of First Amendment rights, including speech, association, and religious liberty.

Altogether, only 23% of appeals fit the popular conception of police accused of excessive force. In most First Amendment appeals, plaintiffs alleged government officials engaged in premeditated retaliation for protected speech or activity.

In a representative sample of 125 First Amendment appeals, 59% involved plaintiffs alleging premeditated abuse by government officials in retaliation for protected First Amendment activity. In nearly half of such cases, government workers alleged retaliation from their superiors, while in nearly a third, private citizens claimed they were targeted for retaliation by government officials.

Qualified immunity favors government defendants and makes it harder for plaintiffs to win—regardless of the merits of their claims.

In all, 59% of qualified immunity appeals were resolved solely in favor of government defendants, while 24% were resolved solely in favor of plaintiffs.

Qualified immunity disadvantages plaintiffs for arbitrary reasons, such as their circuit’s population or publication rate. These vary widely and influence the volume of clearly established law in a circuit—and therefore, the volume and variety of prior cases that plaintiffs can rely on to vindicate their rights.

Qualified immunity rulings often lack precision and clarity, again making it hard for plaintiffs to pinpoint the clearly established law required to win. In common with other legal experts, ours often could not untangle courts’ reasons for granting qualified immunity—if reasons were even offered.

When denied qualified immunity, government defendants have the right to file special immediate appeals—a right unavailable to plaintiffs. And they can do this multiple times in the same lawsuit. Such “interlocutory appeals” accounted for 96% of all defendant appeals.

These special appeals risk wearing down worthy plaintiffs with extended litigation. Their prevalence likely helps explain why the median duration of a qualified immunity lawsuit was three years and two months, 23% longer than the typical federal civil suit up on appeal.

Our findings provide more evidence that qualified immunity is a poor fit for achieving its goals.

Qualified immunity confuses instead of clarifies the rules government workers must follow to avoid burdensome litigation. If legal experts struggle to make sense of qualified immunity, the average government official—let alone one facing a life-or-death situation—cannot be expected to do so.

Qualified immunity fails to protect officials from the burdens of litigation, most notably potentially intrusive discovery. Nearly 70% of appeals came at the summary judgment stage of litigation, when courts typically have already allowed discovery.

Qualified immunity clogs up the courts with extra, often lengthy, appeals—some 2,000 interlocutory appeals that would not have existed without the special appeal rights given to government defendants.

These results suggest qualified immunity shields a much wider array of government officials and conduct than commonly thought. They also add to a growing body of research finding qualified immunity protects officials too much and our rights too little, all while failing to achieve its goals. This strengthens the argument for the Supreme Court or Congress to temper or—better yet—abolish the doctrine.

Whether through outright abolition or significant reform, courts and lawmakers can and should act to eliminate the unbounded impunity allowed by qualified immunity.

Arlington, VA: Institute for Justice, 2024. 6op.

By DICK M. CARPENTER II, JAIMIE CAVANAUGH & SAM GEDGE

Most, if not all, incorporated communities in the United States have municipal and traffic codes that delineate the powers and duties of local governments or provide rules and regulations for public activity in the community. The primary stated purpose of code enforcement is promoting and protecting public health and safety. Codes are commonly enforced through monetary fines and administrative fees. Recent years have seen growing concern about cities engaging in “taxation by citation”—that is, the use of code enforcement to raise revenue from fines and fees in excess of citations issued solely to protect and advance public safety. A significant focus of the concern is how taxation by citation violates rights in the pursuit of revenue. In this way, taxation by citation seems to illustrate Professor Bernadette Atuahene’s theory of stategraft: state agents transferring property from residents “to the state in violation of the state’s own laws or basic human rights,” often during times of budgetary austerity. But this Essay identifies important features of municipal codes and their enforcement that are not necessarily encompassed by this theory. It suggests how stategraft may be expanded to encompass laws, regulations, and systems that legally—if arguably unconstitutionally—allow or incentivize state actors to exploit their residents for the benefit of the bureaucrat’s budget.

Wisconsin Law Review, 2024(2), 707–728.

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 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 SE Duhart Clarke

The right to an attorney in criminal cases is a constitutional right covered under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and is considered fundamental to a fair trial. Over two-thirds of criminal court defendants in the United States are unable to afford their own counsel and thus have an attorney given to them by the court (i.e., indigent defendants). Many legal scholars have debated the effectiveness of indigent defense counsel compared to privately retained counsel. However, in the absence of synthesized data on outcomes for indigent defendants, legal scholars commonly cite the pragmatic and theoretical mechanisms for publicly funded defenders’ limitations or strengths to support their arguments about the effectiveness of indigent defense counsel. When empirical evidence on outcomes for indigent defendants is used to support an argument, the research cited is often limited to studies conducted in specific jurisdictions on a specific step in court case processing. Consequently, our overall understanding of outcomes experienced by indigent defendants is limited and disjointed, underscoring the need for a systematic evaluation of the current empirical literature. The goal of the study in this dissertation was to conduct a systematic literature review and meta-analysis on outcomes for defendants with public defenders, defendants with assigned counsel, and defendants with retained attorneys to better understand what (if any) discrepancies exist in criminal justice-related outcomes as a function of indigent defense status. Specifically, this study examined the current empirical literature on pretrial outcomes, case outcomes, sentencing outcomes, and post-case outcomes for indigent defendants compared to defendants with private/retained attorneys and/or public defenders compared to assigned counsel.

 Raleigh NC: North Carolina State University, 2021.112p.

By Gabriel Petek

Individuals charged with a crime have a right to effective assistance of legal counsel under the U.S. and California Constitutions. This is to ensure they receive equal protection and due process under the law. The government is required to provide and pay for attorneys for those individuals who are unable to afford private attorneys. This is known as “indigent defense.” Importance of Effective Indigent Defense. In addition to being a constitutional right, effective indigent defense in criminal proceedings can help mitigate or eliminate major consequences that defendants face regardless of whether they are convicted, such as losing a job due to being held in jail until their case is resolved. Effective indigent defense can also help ensure that all individuals are treated equitably in criminal proceedings, particularly lower-income individuals and certain racial groups who are at greater risk of experiencing serious consequences from being involved in the criminal justice system. Counties Primarily Responsible for Indigent Defense. In California, counties are primarily responsible for providing and paying for indigent defense. However, recent litigation suggests that the state could be held responsible for ensuring that effective indigent defense is being lawyerprovided. Indigent defense is generally provided in a combination of three ways: (1) public defender offices operated by the government, (2) private law firms or attorneys that contract with the government to provide representation in a certain number of cases and/or over a certain amount of time, or (3) individual private attorneys who are appointed by the court to specific cases. The actual provision of indigent defense services, however, varies by county. State Lacks Information to Assess Indigent Defense Service Levels. The state currently lacks comprehensive and consistent data that directly measures the effectiveness or quality of indigent defense across the state. This makes it difficult for the Legislature to ensure effective indigent defense is being provided. Analysis of Limited Data Raises Questions About Effective Provision of Indigent Defense. In the absence of consistent statewide data and metrics more directly measuring the effectiveness or quality of indigent defense, we analyzed limited available data comparing funding, caseloads, and staffing of indigent defense providers with district attorneys who prosecute cases, allowing for a rough, indirect assessment of existing indigent defense service. The identified differences are notable enough that they raise questions about the effective provision of indigent defense in California. For example, in 2018-19, spending on district attorney offices was 82 percent higher than on indigent defense. Recommend Three Key Steps for Legislative Action. We recommend three key steps that the Legislature could take to ensure it has the necessary information to determine whether a problem exists with indigent defense service levels, what type of problem exists, and how to effectively address such a problem. Specifically, we recommend the Legislature: (1) statutorily define appropriate metrics to more directly measure the quality of indigent defense; (2) require counties collect and report data to the state’s Office of the State Public Defender; and (3) use the data to determine future legislative action, such as identifying whether resources are needed to ensure effective indigent defense as well as how such resources could be targeted to maximize their impact

Sacramento: Legislative Analyst's Office, 2022. 28p.

By American Civil Liberties Union of Louisiana

For two years, the ACLU of Louisiana gathered and analyzed thousands of jail records and interviewed people directly affected by pretrial incarceration to compose a snapshot of who Louisiana incarcerates pretrial, for how long, and at what cost. The landmark report – Justice Can't Wait – showed that after a 10.3 percent increase, Louisiana’s pretrial incarceration rate is now three times the national average and the highest of any state on record since 1970. The study, based on an analysis of thousands of jail records, found that 57 percent of people in jail had been arrested for non-violent offenses and that pretrial incarceration costs Louisiana taxpayers nearly $290 million per year. On average, the people represented in the study had been held behind bars for 5 and a half months – without trial or conviction.

New Orleans: ACLU of Louisiana, 2022. 44p.

By  Joshua Page, Victoria Piehowski, Joe Soss

  Among the institutions that link criminal justice and inequality in the United States, commercial bail remains one of the most important yet least understood. Each year, the bail industry extracts millions of dollars from lower-income Americans, disproportionately draining resources from poor communities of color. We draw on ethnographic research to explore how the bail system operates as a predatory social process, arguing that gender interacts with class and race to structure resource extraction in this field. Poor women of color are especially subject to bail predation because they are seen within the larger social organization of care as bearing primary responsibility for defendants. Gendered care work and emotional labor are thus central to the field’s logic of practice and to bail industry profits.

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 5(1): 150–72  

By Joshua Page and Christine S. Scott-Hayward

In this review of scholarship on bail and pretrial justice in the United States, we analyze how the field of bail operates (and why it operates as it does), focusing on its official and unofficial objectives, core assumptions and values, power dynamics, and technologies. The field, we argue, provides extensive opportunities for generating revenue and containing, controlling, and changing defendants and their families. In pursuit of these objectives, actors consistently generate harms that disproportionately affect low-income people of color and amplify social inequalities. We close with an analysis of political struggles over bail, including current and emerging possibilities for both reformist and radical change. In this, we urge scholars toward sustained engagement with people and organizations in criminalized communities, which pushes scholars to reconsider our preconceptions regarding safety, justice, and the potential for systemic change and opens up new avenues for research and public engagement.

   Annu. Rev. Criminol. 2022. 5:91–113

By Min-Taec Kim

The aim of this study is to estimate the causal impact of appearing via audio-visual link (AVL) on the likelihood of being granted bail. Audio-visual link describes the video conferencing equipment to facilitate court appearances without the defendant being physically present. To estimate the impact of appearing via AVL on bail outcomes, we compare individuals who have their first court bail hearing via AVL at two NSW Correctional Centres, Amber Laurel and Surry Hills, between Jan 2018 and Feb 2020 with similar individuals over the same period. The credibility of the estimates hinge on two factors:
1) The extent to which we have observed and modelled the factors that influence the bail decision of the magistrate, and 2) The extent to which the allocation of AVL is ‘as good as random’ after controlling for all observed factors. Three statistical approaches (logistic regression, Mixed effects regression and a generalised random forest) are used to adjust for the observed differences between these two groups and estimate the causal impact of appearing via AVL.

Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research (BOCSAR), Crime and Justice Bulletin No. CJB235. 2021. 40p.

By The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

This report examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.

Washington, USCCR, 2022. 281p.

By the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

This report examines current approaches to reforming the pre-trial and bail systems in the U.S. criminal justice system. The report reveals that between 1970 and 2015, there was a 433% increase in the number of individuals who have been detained pre-trial, and pre-trial detainees represent a larger proportion of the total incarcerated population.

Washington, DC: The Commission, 2022. 281p.

By Alexander Brown.

A Philosophical Examination. Hate speech law can be found throughout the world. But it is also the subject of numerous principled arguments, both for and against. These principles invoke a host of morally relevant features (e.g., liberty, health, autonomy, security, non-subordination, the absence of oppression, human dignity, the discovery of truth, the acquisition of knowledge, self-realization, human excellence, civic dignity, cultural diversity and choice, recognition of cultural identity, intercultural dialogue, participation in democratic self-government, being subject only to legitimate rule) and practical considerations (e.g., efficacy, the least restrictive alternative, chilling effects). The book develops and then critically examines these various principled arguments. It also attempts to de-homogenize hate speech law into different clusters of laws/regulations/codes that constrain uses of hate speech, so as to facilitate a more nuanced examination of the principled arguments.

New York; London: Routledge, 2015. 379p.

Edited by J. Jrpa Dawuni.

Selected Studies. Women judges are playing increasingly prominent roles in many African judiciaries, yet there remains very little comparative research on the subject. Drawing on extensive cross-national data and theoretical and empirical analysis, this book provides a timely and broad-ranging assessment of gender and judging in African judiciaries. Employing different theoretical approaches, the book investigates how women have fared within domestic African judiciaries as both actors and litigants. It explores how women negotiate multiple hierarchies to access the judiciary, and how gender-related issues are handled in courts. The chapters in the book provide policy, theoretical and practical prescriptions to the challenges identified, and offer recommendations for the future directions of gender and judging in the post-COVID-19 era, including the role of technology, artificial intelligence, social media, and institutional transformations that can help promote women’s rights. Bringing together specific cases from Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, Nigeria, Zambia, Tanzania, and South Africa and regional bodies such as ECOWAS and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights, and covering a broad range of thematic reflections, this book will be of interest to scholars, students, and practitioners of African law, judicial politics, judicial training, and gender studies. It will also be useful to bilateral and multilateral donor institutions financing gender-sensitive judicial reform programs, particularly in Africa.

London; New York: Routledge, 2022. 346p.

By Marjorie Mayo, Gerald Koessl, Matthew Scott and Imogen Slater.

This book explores the dilemmas being faced by professionals and volunteers who are aiming to provide access to justice for all and to promote social justice agendas in increasingly challenging contexts. Public service modernisation has been accompanied by increasing marketisation and massive public expenditure cuts, with escalating effects in terms of the growth of social inequalities. As the following chapters illustrate, Law Centres have provided a lens through which to examine the implications of these wider policies, as increasing marketisation has been impacting upon staff and volunteers working to promote social justice in disadvantaged communities.

Policy Press (2014) 174p.