Expert Analysis

• Compassionate Release Grants Needed Now More Than Ever

  

  After the U.S. Sentencing Commission's recent expansion of the criteria for determining compassionate release eligibility, courts should grant such motions more frequently in light of the inherently dangerous conditions presented by increasingly understaffed and overpopulated federal prisons, say Alan Ellis and Mark Allenbaugh at the Law Offices of Alan Ellis.

• Justices' Double Jeopardy Ruling Preserves Acquittal Sanctity

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision last week in McElrath v. Georgia, barring the state from retrying a man acquitted of murder after a so-called repugnant verdict, is significant in the tangled web of double jeopardy jurisprudence for its brief and unequivocal protection of an acquittal’s finality, says Lissa Griffin at Pace Law School.

• NY Must Address Urgent Need For Immigration Legal Aid

  

  The recent influx of migrants to New York has exposed the urgent need for state legislators to make a long-term investment in sustainable immigration legal services infrastructure, supervision and training, say Marielena Hincapié and Stephen Yale-Loehr at Cornell Law.

• 911 Call Scrutiny Should Not Be Used To Identify Suspects

  

  Though the use of 911 call analysis to identify suspects continues to spread across the country, this scientifically unproven method opens the door to wrongful convictions, so prosecutors should review investigations that relied on the technique, and lawmakers should ban it nationwide, say Miriam Krinsky at Fair and Just Prosecution and Isabelle Cohn at the Innocence Project.

• 6 Practice Pointers For Pro Bono Immigration Practice

  

  An attorney taking on their first pro bono immigration matter may find the law and procedures beguiling, but understanding key deadlines, the significance of individual immigration judges' rules and specialized aspects of the practice can help avoid common missteps, says Steven Malm at Haynes Boone.

• 8th Circ. Redistricting Ruling Imperils The Voting Rights Act

  

  The Eighth Circuit’s recent ruling in Arkansas NAACP v. Arkansas Board of Apportionment, holding that private plaintiffs don't have standing to sue in redistricting cases, creates a circuit split, and, if upheld, would nearly destroy the Voting Rights Act, says William Brewer at Brewer Storefront.

• Justices May Clarify Expert Witness Confrontation Confusion

  

  After oral arguments in Smith v. Arizona, the U.S. Supreme Court seems poised to hold that expert witness opinions that rely on out-of-court testimonial statements for their factual basis are unconstitutional, thus resolving some of the complications created by the court’s confrontation clause jurisprudence, says Richard Friedman at the University of Michigan Law School.

• Immigration Detention Should Offer Universal Legal Counsel

  

  Given the large backlog of immigration court cases and the more than 70% of people in immigration detention without counsel in 2023, the system should establish a universal right to federally funded representation for anyone facing deportation, similar to the public defender model, say Laura Lunn and Shaleen Morales at the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network.

• UX Research And Design Is Crucial For Justice Technologies

  

  It’s essential that new access-to-justice digital tools incorporate user experience research and design methodologies to enhance access and accessibility, improve efficiency in processes and service delivery, and reduce risk, says Sarah Mauet at Innovation for Justice.

• Higher Juror Compensation Trend Is Good For Justice System

  

  This year a number of states increased daily juror compensation rates after decades of stagnation — a positive development that facilitates more representative juries, aids decision making and boosts public confidence in the legal system, says Cary Silverman at Shook Hardy.

• The Pop Culture Docket: Judge D'Emic On Moby Grape

  

  The 1968 Moby Grape song "Murder in My Heart for the Judge" tells the tale of a fictional defendant treated with scorn by the judge, illustrating how much the legal system has evolved in the past 50 years, largely due to problem-solving courts and the principles of procedural justice, says Kings County Supreme Court Administrative Judge Matthew D'Emic.

• 6th Circ. Case Eases Path For Some Excessive Force Claims

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court recently declined to hear Fox v. Campbell, leaving in place the Sixth Circuit’s holding that excessive force claims based on police shootings can be founded on the Fourth Amendment even if no one is hit by gunfire — which will be helpful for some civil rights litigants, says Sharon Fairley at the University of Chicago Law School.

• In Culley, Justices Unlikely To Set New Forfeiture Standards

  

  As the U.S. Supreme Court considers Culley v. Marshall — a case with the potential to reshape civil asset forfeiture practices — the justices' recent comments at oral argument suggest that, while some of them may be concerned about civil forfeiture abuse, they are unlikely to significantly change the status quo, say attorneys at Jackson Walker.

• The Meaning Of 'Bail' Has Strayed Far From Its Legal Roots

  

  As the pretrial system faces increasing scrutiny nationwide, states must recognize that imposing financial bail conditions harms communities, and that pretrial release practices must be realigned with foundational American legal principles — including the idea that money-based detention violates due process, says Matt Alsdorf at the Center for Effective Public Policy.

• Learning From San Francisco's Jury Pay Pilot Program

  

  A pilot program in San Francisco shows that increasing compensation for lower-income jurors can foster more diverse juries and boost access to justice — and provides lessons for establishing similar projects in jurisdictions around the U.S., say San Francisco Treasurer José Cisneros, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and Public Defender Mano Raju.