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

By Kristin Porter, Cindy Redcross, Luke Miratrix
Across the country, release and detention decisions for defendants in the pretrial period — that is, the period after arrest while a criminal case is being adjudicated — are increasingly guided by risk assessments, which rely on data to estimate defendants’ risk of failing to appear for a court date or of being charged with new criminal activity if released pending trial. A risk assessment is generally used by a judicial body to help determine whether a defendant will be released while waiting for a case to be resolved, and if so, under what conditions (these are the defendant’s release conditions). The goal of pretrial risk assessments is to make any restrictions imposed on a defendant’s liberty better align with the risk that person poses to the community.

As has been widely discussed, these assessments — and the way they are used — have the potential to introduce new biases and further perpetuate racial disparities in the criminal justice system. This research brief describes the approach taken by MDRC’s Center for Criminal Justice Research and MDRC’s Center for Data Insights to understand, assess, and address bias in pretrial risk assessments and the systems that use them.

New York: MDRC, 2020. 11p.

By Elizabeth Neuland

On May 4, 2021, New York became the 20th state to restore the right to vote to individuals upon release from custody, regardless of parole status. In a time when the United States government is trying to protect voting rights through the “For the People Act” and “The John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act,”  and while some states are seeing radical legislation proposed that would potentially suppress the right to vote, New York needs to abolish the antiquated practice of felony disenfranchisement and guarantee the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status. The practice of felony disenfranchisement does not align with the values and core curriculum of the programs being provided by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”) within state correctional facilities. The overview statement for program services reads, “DOCCS offers an extensive array of programs and services for incarcerated individuals to assist them in redirecting their lives and becoming productive, law-abiding members  of society.” Although the word “rehabilitation” is absent, this statement essentially summarizes what rehabilitation is. The argument to abolish felony disenfranchisement is highlighted by the vast rehabilitation efforts taken by DOCCS, through numerous employment and vocational programs, temporary release programs, and educational opportunities. Felony disenfranchisement stands in stark opposition to rehabilitation because it alienates individuals from the very communities to which DOCCS is taking great measures to help them to return In addition to rehabilitation, restoring the right to vote to all eligible New Yorkers regardless of incarceration status would raise the level of accountability for state politicians, lawmakers, and DOCCS itself. It is no secret that correctional facilities can be dangerous places, due to both interpersonal violence and acts of self-inflicted harm, including suicide. Accountability should apply to those that are the guardians of a vulnerable population. In Parts I and II, this Comment provides a brief overview of international and national practices of felony disenfranchisement to see where New York fits into the landscape. Part III concentrates on New York State. Its legislation affecting disenfranchisement and the number of individuals incarcerated are discussed to highlight how many people are affected by felony disenfranchisement. The argument to fully abolish felony disenfranchisement is made through discussions of rehabilitation and accountability. Lastly, this Comment describes how all New York citizens could be enfranchised.  

 City University of New York Law Review. 2022, 25pg

by Shamena Anwar, Melissa M. Labriola, Stephanie Brooks Holliday, Matthew L. Mizel

In this report, RAND researchers share results of a process and outcome evaluation of Project Reset, a program that diverts adults arrested for low-level crimes into community-based support programs and out of the court system. Initially, the post-arrest pre-arraignment program was available only to individuals who did not have a criminal record, but the eligibility criteria eventually expanded to include those with prior convictions. The program served 2,149 individuals during the period analyzed. Researchers identified key program facilitators and barriers, documented participant experiences, determined the effect the program had on case outcomes and rearrest rates, and examined whether the program was cost-effective.

Key Findings

• Project Reset led to improved case outcomes for participants. The program allowed individuals to attend a one-time, two-hour programming session and have their arrest sealed immediately afterwards. If not for the program, these individuals likely would have received an Adjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD) in the court system. Receiving an ACD would have required them to remain arrest-free and make multiple court appearances over a six-month to one-year supervisory period.

• Project Reset did not lead to an increase in rearrests.

• Project Reset was viewed favorably among staff and program participants.

• Lack of reliable and accurate contact information for participants was a major barrier to recruitment, as 49 percent of those referred to Project Reset could not be reached by the provider.

• Inequities in program completion may compound existing disparities in the criminal legal system. Outreach difficulties resulted in White Hispanic, Black non-Hispanic, and Black Hispanic individuals composing 65.2 percent of the population referred to Project Reset, but only 58.8% of program completers.

• Under the existing program cost structure, the program costs outweighed the costs of traditional court adjudication. However, this relationship varied substantially by provider, and the program costs were actually significantly less expensive than court costs for the provider that served the largest number of clients.

• Program cost-effectiveness would improve if the ratio of program staff to participants were lower, which could be accomplished either by lowering staff levels or increasing the number of participants.

Recommendations

• Strategize how to collect better contact information for participants.

• Increase public awareness of the program to improve its credibility when programs conduct outreach.

• Examine whether current program eligibility criteria are leading to racial and ethnic disparities in program referral rates.

• Reduce program provision costs by lowering the staff-to-participant ratio, which could be accomplished by either reducing the number of staff or increasing program caseloads.

• Assess whether other populations could benefit from diversion programming.

• Continue to hire, support, and keep well-qualified staff.

• Support staff autonomy and program flexibility.

• Continue to connect participants with needed services after completion.

Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2023. 129p.

by Nicola Palena and Francesca De Napoli

 Research shows that lying is a common behaviour, and that verbal cues can be effective for lie detection. However, deception detection is not straightforward as there are several factors at play, such as interpersonal differences and the content of the lie. Consequently, the effectiveness of available cues for deception detection can vary significantly. In a pre-registered study involving 80 participants (a priori sample size analyses were conducted), we instructed participants to either tell the truth or lie about an autobiographical event and an opinion. The participants also completed questionnaires on personality traits and cognitive tasks, resulting in two participant clusters. Surprisingly, when analysing verbal behaviour, truthfulness, cluster memberships, and their interactions were not found to be significant. Only lie content affected verbal cues. Additional, non-pre-registered analyses revealed that liars displayed more micro-expressions than truth tellers, but only when describing their memories and when focusing on the latency time between the investigator’s question and the interviewee’s answer. The results were interpreted in terms of the experimental design, which encouraged only short answers from the interviewees, leaving limited room for verbal content to be effective.

Soc. Sci. 2024, 13(2), 85; https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci13020085

Steve van de Weijer a,* , Rutger Leukfeldt a,b,c , Asier Moneva a,b 

The outbreak of the COVID-19 virus in December 2019 and the restrictive measures that were implemented to slow down the spread of the virus have had a significant impact on our way of life. The sudden shift from offline to online activities and work may have resulted in new cybersecurity risks. The present study therefore examined changes in the prevalence, nature and impact of cybercrime among Dutch citizens and SME owners, during the pandemic. Qualitative interviews with ten experts working at various public and private organizations in the Netherlands that have insights into cybercrime victimization and data from victim surveys administrated in 2019 and 2021 were analyzed. The results show that there was only a small, non-statistically significant increase in the prevalence of cybercrime during the pandemic among citizens and SME owners. Nevertheless, the COVID-19 pandemic did have an impact on the modus operandi of cybercriminals: victims indicated that a considerable proportion of the offenses was related to the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly in the case of online fraud. Moreover, the use of new applications and programs for work was associated with an increased risk of cybercrime victimization during the COVID-19 crisis. These results suggest that increases in rates of registered cybercrime that were found in previous studies might be the consequence of a reporting effect and that cybercriminals adapt their modus operandi to current societal developments. 

Computers & Security Volume 139, April 2024, 103693

William P. McClanahan  Carmen S. Sergiou , Aniek M. Siezenga , Dominik Gerstner , Henk Elffers , Job van der Schalk  Jean-Louis van Gelder

High levels of Fear of Crime (FOC) are associated with people engaging with their community less, lower use of public spaces, and a general sense of overall anxiety. In short, such fear may reduce the livability of an area. The primary goal of this research was to examine the potential consequences of environmental interventions intended to reduce crime on FOC and perceived livability of the area. Using immersive Virtual Reality (VR) technology, in two studies we examined how environmental interventions in residential neighborhoods influence FOC. In Study 1, we examined how motion-activated, dynamic street lighting and sound may decrease FOC. In Study 2, we applied an adapted ‘watching eyes’ intervention and examined how it may inadvertently increase FOC in a neighborhood. In Study 1 the intervention did not affect feelings of safety. In Study 2, the ‘watching eyes’ intervention indirectly increased FOC via feelings of being watched. In the Discussion, we highlight the importance of better understanding the boundary conditions of such environmental interventions.

Volume 147, April 2024, 104823

By Brian D. Graves , Michael Fendrich 

introduction For adults involved with the criminal justice system who are reentering their communities post-incarceration, there is a large need for community-based substance use treatment. Little is known, however, about the types, availability, and benefits of programs targeting the reentry population in community settings that operate independently from the criminal justice system. Methods We conducted a scoping review of community-based treatment programs for substance use among reentering justice-involved adults to examine the contemporary state of literature and identify research gaps. We searched four databases for peer-reviewed articles conducted in the United States and published between 2017 and 2021. Results The final sample included 58 articles. Interventions varied, but the two most prominent were medications for opioid use disorder (35%) and peer support or social support interventions (22.4%). Studies were more likely to show positive impact on substance use outcomes than criminal justice outcomes. Themes were identified around participant characteristics, treatment delivery, and treatment benefits. Conclusions Findings from this scoping review suggest that the range of evidence-based strategies for substance use treatment targeting the reentry population is growing, but there is a need for additional research that examines implementation, cost effectiveness, and racial/ethnic disparities.
February 2024 Drug and Alcohol Dependence Reports 10(1):100221

By Eric Reinhart,  Daniel L. Chen

IMPORTANCE Mass incarceration is known to foster infectious disease outbreaks, amplification of infectious diseases in surrounding communities, and exacerbation of health disparities in disproportionately policed communities. To date, however, policy interventions intended to achieve epidemic mitigation in US communities have neglected to account for decarceration as a possible means of protecting public health and safety. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the association of jail decarceration and government anti-contagion policies with reductions in the spread of SARS-CoV-2. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study used county-level data from January to November 2020 to analyze COVID-19 cases, jail populations, and anti contagion policies in a panel regression model to estimate the association of jail decarceration and anti-contagion policies with COVID-19 growth rates. A total of 1605 counties with data available on both jail population and COVID-19 cases were included in the analysis. This sample represents approximately 51% of US counties, 72% of the US population, and 60% of the US jail population. EXPOSURES Changes to jail populations and implementation of 10 anti-contagion policies: nursing home visitation bans, school closures, mask mandates, prison visitation bans, stay-at-home orders, and closure of nonessential businesses, gyms, bars, movie theaters, and restaurants. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Daily COVID-19 case growth rates. RESULTS In the 1605 counties included in this study, the mean (SD) jail population was 283.38 (657.78) individuals, and the mean (SD) population was 315.24 (2151.01) persons per square mile. An estimated 80% reduction in US jail populations, achievable through noncarceral management of nonviolent alleged offenses and in line with average international incarceration rates, would have been associated with a 2.0% (95% CI, 0.8%-3.1%) reduction in daily COVID-19 case growth rates. Jail decarceration was associated with 8 times larger reductions in COVID-19 growth rates in counties with above-median population density (4.6%; 95% CI, 2.2%- 7.1%) relative to those below this median (0.5%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.9%). Nursing home visitation bans were associated with a 7.3% (95% CI, 5.8%-8.9%) reduction in COVID-19 case growth rates, followed by school closures (4.3%; 95% CI, 2.0%-6.6%), mask mandates (2.5%; 95% CI, 1.7%-3.3%), prison visitation bans (1.2%; 95% CI, 0.2%-2.2%), and stay-at-home orders (0.8%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.6%). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Although many studies have documented that high incarceration rates are associated with community-wide health harms, this study is, to date, the first to show that decarceration is associated with population-level public health benefits. Its findings suggest that, among other anti-contagion interventions, large-scale decarceration and changes to pretrial detention policies  are likely to be important for improving US public health, biosecurity, and pandemic preparedness. 

AMA Network Open. 2021;4(9):e2123405 

By Interrogating Justice

The cash bail system used throughout every state in the U.S. leaves many innocent people incarcerated. That’s one of the reasons why so many advocacy groups are pursuing cash bail reform efforts to replace the discriminatory system with one that works. The term “cash bail” describes the funds that someone has to pay to be released from pretrial detention. Generally, the amount of cash bail that must be posted is based on the characteristics of the charged crime and alleged offender. But judges may raise or lower that amount as well. Once the amount is paid, it serves as a promise that the person will show up for their trial or hearing. If the person consistently appears for court, the money is returned. In they don’t appear, the money is not returned. And, if someone cannot afford to pay the cash bail, they won’t be released until their case is resolved. There are certain alternatives for when someone cannot come up with the bail amount on their own. For example, someone could get the money through a bail-bond company. The bond company covers the fee but will typically also charge a certain percentage of the bond to be paid back to them. If someone goes this route and does not show up to their trial or hearing, the bond company will use collateral to get its money back. WHY THE CASH BAIL SYSTEM IS FLAWED If you’re thinking that it seems unfair for someone to have to pay their way out of jail — whether that involves the fee alone or the cost of going through a bond company — other criminal justice advocates and allies would agree with you. Overcrowding in jails and prisons is already an issue in and of itself, so individuals being placed into that population simply because they don’t have the money to post bail only furthers the problem. There are two other significant reasons why the cash bail system is flawed, ultimately leading to an unnecessary burden on those in jail: racial and socioeconomic discrimination and psychological impacts. 

Durham, NC: Interrogating Justice, 2021. 5p.

By William M. Carlucci

The Eighth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that bail, when afforded to a criminal defendant, not be excessive. However, there is no provision as to what form bail must take or how it is to be determined. Starting in the twilight of the nineteenth century, monetary conditions of bail became increasingly prevalent throughout the United States. Yet, in recent years, there has been a movement to eliminate the requirement that defendants pay their way to pretrial freedom. States have taken measures to move away from cash bail, ranging from significantly limiting its use to outright prohibitions against monetary conditions on bail. The impetus behind such reform measures is that monetary conditions on bail discriminate against lower income defendants by disparately leading to pretrial detention of individuals who cannot afford to pay the required sum. This Comment analyzes the relative success of the risk-based, non-monetary bail systems that several states have implemented. This Comment begins by analyzing the history of the right to bail in the United States, starting with how such a right was understood at the time of the founding. Next, the evolution of the application of bail and the considerations behind pretrial release or detention determinations, are discussed. This Comment then proceeds to analyze how risk-based, non-monetary bail systems have been codified and applied. Last, this Comment evaluates the impact that these schemes have had on the states of implementation and potential alterations that would allow for better administration of such legislation.

69 Emory L. J. 1205 (2020).

By City of San Jose.  Office of the City Auditor 

The City of San José Police Department (SJPD) has more than 1,700 sworn and non-sworn staff who provide public safety services to San José’s residents, including responding to calls for police services, investigative efforts, crime prevention and education, and regulatory services. The largest number of sworn officers is dedicated to supporting patrol efforts across the city and responding to calls for service. Civilian staff, which accounts for about one-third of SJPD’s staff, provide administrative support, perform crime prevention analysis, staff the Police Communications Center, and assist patrol staff through the Community Service Officer program. In total, the Department’s Adopted Operating Budget for FY 2020-21 was $471.5 million. The objective of this audit was to review and compare SJPD staffing, spending, and calls for service over time, including an allocation of staff by bureau or division, vacancies, and use of overtime. This audit was requested by multiple Councilmembers. As the City undergoes its reimagining community safety process, the information and recommendations in this report can provide insight into the Department’s staffing history, expenditures, and workload as it moves forward. Finding 1: Reductions in Sworn Staffing Over 20 Years Present Challenges for SJPD. Over the last two decades, SJPD has experienced major staffing reductions in sworn officers. Layoffs and reductions in budgeted staffing during the Great Recession, along with high numbers of resignations and retirements in subsequent years, resulted in a decline in the number of active sworn officers. The Department continues to fill vacancies through recruitment and has begun to add budgeted sworn officer positions in recent years. We found:  In FY 2000-01, the Department was budgeted for 1,358 sworn staff; in FY 2020-21, that number had decreased to 1,157. Staffing reached its lowest point in FY 2016-17 when there were 1,107 budgeted positions; more than 200 of these budgeted positions were vacant that year.  SJPD has been actively recruiting to fill sworn vacancies, adding nearly 200 recruits in the past two years. Although the Department has begun to grow again, the Department’s police force is overall less experienced than it was ten years ago.  While there are different factors that may contribute to staffing decisions, San José primarily uses a budget-based model to determine its overall staffing from year to year. Finding 2: Increases in SJPD Expenditures Have Outweighed Staffing Changes. Despite having less staff, SJPD expenditures have increased over time. In FY 2020-21, SJPD’s adopted budget was $471.5 million, more than double its adopted budget in FY 2001-02. We found:  The largest increase in expenditures has been in retirement and fringe benefit costs, growing from $65 million in FY 2008-09 to $168 million in FY 2019-20.  Overtime costs grew by over 300 percent in the past decade and accounted for 10 percent of total expenditures in FY 2019-20.  Personal services account for 92 percent of the Department’s budget. However, overall spending on salaries declined beginning in FY 2008-09 and did not fully recover until FY 2018-19. This decrease was due to vacancies, fewer budgeted staff, and a 10 percent pay cut in FY 2010-11.  Other costs, including computer software expenses, professional services, vehicle costs, workers’ compensation, travel and training, and supplies and materials (including ballistic equipment, ammunition, and other police supplies) accounted for the remaining 8 percent of expenditures in FY 2019-20. Finding 3: SJPD’s Workload Has Increased as It Has Struggled to Meet its Response Time Goals. Officers respond to incidents dispatched through the Police Communications Center and initiate calls if they observe a need for police service or conduct a vehicle or pedestrian stop. The Department categorizes each response into one of six priorities, depending on the nature of the incident. We found:  In FY 2019-20, the Police Communications Center received over 1.2 million calls for emergency and nonemergency service. This resulted in 331,000 officer responses, up from 274,000 responses in FY 2016-17.  SJPD did not meet its response time target in FY 2019- 20 for the highest priority incidents, with SJPD only meeting the Priority 1 response time target in one district (District D at the Airport).  Queuing time, or the amount of time a call waits for an officer to be dispatched, was a major driver for SJPD for not hitting its Priority 2 response time target indicating not enough staff were available to respond. Finding 4: Reorganizing San José’s Patrol Districts and Reviewing Shift Schedules Could Optimize Workload and Available Staffing. SJPD deploys staff across three shifts and 16 patrol districts, in addition to the Airport District. Several studies have concluded that SJPD should review how it organizes its patrol districts and shifts. We found: 

San Jose, CA: City of Jose, Office of the City Auditor, 2021. 101p.

By Jingxuan Zhao; Jessica Star,  Xuesong Han, 

IMPORTANCE People with a history of incarceration may experience barriers in access to and receipt of health care in the US. OBJECTIVE To examine the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of care and the contribution of modifiable factors (educational attainment and health insurance coverage) to these associations. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Individuals with and without incarceration history were identified from the 2008 to 2018 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979 cohort. Analyses were conducted from October 2022 to December 2023. MAIN MEASURES AND OUTCOMES Access to and receipt of health care were measured as self-reported having usual source of care and preventive service use, including physical examination, influenza shot, blood pressure check, blood cholesterol level check, blood glucose level check, dental check, and colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screenings across multiple panels. To account for the longitudinal study design, we used the inverse probability weighting method with generalized estimating equations to evaluate associations of incarceration history and access to care. Separate multivariable models examining associations between incarceration history and receipt of each preventive service adjusted for sociodemographic factors; sequential models further adjusted for educational attainment and health insurance coverage to examine their contribution to the associations of incarceration history and access to and receipt of health care. RESULTS A total of 7963 adults with 41 614 person-years of observation were included in this study; of these, 586 individuals (5.4%) had been incarcerated, with 2800 person-years of observation (4.9%). Compared with people without incarceration history, people with incarceration history had lower percentages of having a usual source of care or receiving preventive services, including physical examinations (69.6% vs 74.1%), blood pressure test (85.6% vs 91.6%), blood cholesterol level test (59.5% vs 72.2%), blood glucose level test (61.4% vs 69.4%), dental check up (51.1% vs 66.0%), and breast (55.0% vs 68.2%) and colorectal cancer screening (65.6% vs 70.3%). With additional adjustment for educational attainment and health insurance, the associations of incarceration history and access to care were attenuated for most measures and remained statistically significant for measures of having a usual source of care, blood cholesterol level test, and dental check up only. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE The results of this survey study suggest that incarceration history was associated with worse access to and receipt of health care. Educational attainment and health insurance may contribute to these associations. Efforts to improve access to education and health insurance coverage for people with an incarceration history might mitigate disparities in care. 

JAMA Health Forum. 2024;5(2):e235318. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum.2023.5318  

By Elisabeth Semel, Dagen Downard, Emma Tolman, Anne Weis, Danielle Craig, and Chelsea Hanlock

Racial discrimination is an ever-present feature of jury selection in California. This report investigates the history, legacy, and continuing practice of excluding people of color, especially African Americans, from California juries through the exercise of peremptory challenges. Unlike challenges for cause, each party in a trial has the right to excuse a specific number of jurors without stating a reason and without the court’s approval. In California, peremptory challenges are defined by statute. Historically, the main vice of peremptory challenges was that prosecutors wielded them with impunity to remove African Americans from jury service. These strikes were part and parcel of the systematic exclusion of Blacks from civil society. We found that prosecutors continue to exercise peremptory challenges to remove African Americans and Latinx people from California juries for reasons that are explicitly or implicitly related to racial stereotypes. In 1978, in People v. Wheeler, our state supreme court was the first court in the nation to adopt a three-step procedure intended to reduce prosecutors’ discriminatory use of peremptory challenges. Almost a decade later, in Batson v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court approved a similar approach with the goal of ending race-based strikes against African-American prospective jurors. An essential feature of the “Batson/Wheeler procedure” is that it only provides a remedy for intentional discrimination. Thus, at step one, the objecting party must establish a sufficient showing—known as a “prima facie case”—of purposeful discrimination. At step two, if the trial court agrees that the objecting party has made such a showing, the burden of producing evidence shifts to the striking party to give a “race-neutral” reason. At step three, the trial court decides whether the objecting party has established purposeful discrimination. If the court finds that the striking party’s reason was credible, it denies the Batson objection. In his concurring opinion in Batson, Justice Thurgood Marshall warned that Batson’s three-step procedure would fail to end racially discriminatory peremptory strikes. He anticipated that prosecutors would easily be able to produce “race-neutral” reasons at Batson’s second step, and that judges would be ill-equipped to second-guess those reasons. Further, Justice Marshall doubted Batson’s efficacy because the procedure did nothing to curb strikes motivated by unconscious racism—known more often today as implicit bias. Justice Marshall was prescient: 34 years after Batson was decided, prosecutors in California still disproportionately exercise peremptory challenges to exclude African Americans and Latinx people from juries. The Berkeley Law Death Penalty Clinic explored the shortcomings of the Batson procedure. Our report investigates how the California Supreme Court went from a judiciary that championed the eradication of race-based strikes to a court that resists the United States Supreme Court’s limited efforts to enforce Batson. We conclude that Batson is a woefully inadequate tool to end racial discrimination in jury selection.

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2020. 166p.

By Elisabeth Semel , Willy Ramirez, Yara Slaton, Casey Jang and Lauren Havey

In a new report, the Death Penalty Clinic expands on “Whitewashing the Jury Box: How California Perpetuates the Exclusion of Black and Latinx Jurors,” a 2020 report which investigated the history, legacy, and ongoing practice of excluding people of color — especially African Americans — from state juries through prosecutors’ peremptory challenges.

“Guess Who’s Coming to Jury Duty?: How the Failure to Collect Juror Demographic Data Contributes to Whitewashing the Jury Box” continues the clinic’s racial justice research and advocacy by cataloging the states that gather prospective jurors’ self-identified race and ethnicity and those that do not. It examines what courts do with the information, including whether it is provided to the court and counsel for use during jury selection, and the consequences of these choices in furthering or obstructing jury representativeness and diversity. In particular, the report shows why the collection of prospective jurors’ self-identified race and ethnicity is vital to meeting state and federal fair cross-section guarantees and eliminating the discriminatory exercise of peremptory challenges.

Racial/ethnic representation and diversity matter to jury decision-making and hence justice cannot be achieved unless courts take a race-conscious approach to jury composition and selection.

Berkeley, CA: University of California at Berkeley, School of Law, 2024. 89p.

By: The United States Sentencing Commission

This is the twenty-eighth edition of the United States Sentencing Commission’s Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. This Sourcebook contains descriptive statistics on the application of the federal sentencing guidelines and provides selected district, circuit, and national sentencing data. The volume covers fiscal year 2023 (October 1, 2022, through September 30, 2023, hereinafter “2023”). This Sourcebook, together with the 2023 Annual Report, constitutes the annual report referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 997, as well as the analysis, recommendations, and accounting to Congress referenced in 28 U.S.C. § 994(w)(3). The Commission received documentation on 64,124 federal felony and Class A misdemeanor cases involving individuals sentenced in fiscal year 2023.[1] The Commission coded and edited information from the sentencing documents in these cases into its comprehensive, computerized data collection system.

The Commission first released sentencing data in its 1988 Annual Report and reported this data annually until 1996. That year, the Commission compiled sentencing data into a new publication, the Sourcebook of Federal Sentencing Statistics. In 2019, the Sourcebook edition reporting fiscal year 2018 data was substantially revised and expanded. Existing tables were revised to reflect current sentencing practices. Many figures were updated to make them easier to understand and were presented in color while others were removed and the data on them presented in new ways. Additional analyses regarding drug and immigration crimes were added, and new sections on firearms and economic offenses were included. Trend analyses were added to each of the major sections to show how sentencing patterns had changed over the last ten years. The section on Sentenced Organizations was also expanded. Finally, Appendix B, which provides sentencing data for each judicial district, was completely redesigned to reflect current sentencing practices.

Beginning with that 2018 Sourcebook, important methodological changes were made in the way the data was presented. Principal among them was the way cases were assigned to a “type of crime” (previously called offense type). Beginning with fiscal year 2018 data, the guideline (or guidelines) that the court applied in determining the sentence determines the crime type category to which a case is assigned. Also, the names of some of the crime type categories were revised and some outdated categories were removed from the tables and figures. Another important methodological change was that sentences were capped at 470 months for all analyses. Additionally, cases involving the production of child pornography were reassigned to the sexual abuse crime type. Previously, these cases were assigned to the child pornography offense type in the Sourcebook.

Finally, beginning with the 2018 Sourcebook, the methodology used to analyze the sentence imposed relative to the sentencing range for the case as determined under the Commission’s Guidelines Manual was substantially revised. Sentences now are grouped into two broad categories: Sentences Under the Guidelines Manual and Variances. The former category comprises all cases in which the sentence imposed was within the applicable guideline range or, if outside the range, where the court cited one or more of the departure reasons in the Guidelines Manual as a basis for the sentence. Variance cases are those in which the sentence was outside the guideline range (either above or below) and where the court did not cite any guideline reason for the sentence. Data for important subgroups within these two categories are also reported.

Because of these methodological changes, direct comparisons between data for Sourcebooks from fiscal year 2018 and later years cannot always be made to data reported in the Sourcebook for years before fiscal year 2018.

Washington, DC: USSC, 2024.