Proof Over Precedent™

In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the criminal record clearing process gets a close-up examination. Researchers and a former field partner at Kansas Legal Services discuss an expungement study in Kansas that reveals the numerous, and sometimes prohibitive and illogical, steps it takes for an individual to clear a record – a task made exponentially more difficult and less likely to succeed without the aid of legal representation.

Expungement appears to have all the signs of promising policy including better job and housing outcomes for individuals whose criminal records have been cleared; low recidivism rates; and subsequently better societal outcomes. Where it falls short, researchers in a Michigan study found, is with accessibility and uptake. This episode of “Proof Over Precedent” looks at the findings and dives into the challenges of studying expungement and the areas where the record-clearing process could be improved.

This episode of “Proof Over Precedent” brings together IRB Director Shannon Sewards and A2J Lab Faculty Director and podcast host Jim Greiner to talk about the complexity of ethical research involving incarcerated individuals and the balance between maintaining those ethical standards and advancing social and behavioral research. The discussion also delves into the differences between protections for biomedical research and those for behavioral research.

When it comes to consumer protection, signing off on the fine print may equate to signing off certain legal rights and agreeing not to sue a company in court but rather to use arbitration. Does the process actually matter? Several studies find variances in consumer financial relief and win rates, along with potential incentives in mandatory arbitration that could discredit the integrity of the process. The latest “Proof Over Precedent” episode calls for new research to address the shortcomings of existing studies and to provide definitive findings on mandatory arbitration’s impact on consumers.

In this “Student Voices” episode, HLS J.D. candidate Kristen Arnold looks at the procedural shortcomings of life sentences without the possibility of parole, particularly in comparison to capital punishment cases. She dives into the injustices of the LWOP procedure, the no-hope consequences for inmates and the system, and opportunity for a randomized control trial in the field to improve fairness.

Despite search warrants being a topic of significant interest in court cases and legal scholarship, the process of obtaining warrants offers comparatively little information. But when researchers found a surprising public data point in this field, their analysis led to sobering findings regarding the time judges spend reviewing warrants and the high approval rates of such warrants. In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the researchers discuss their work, the data analysis process, and the implications of potentially insufficient judicial review of warrants.

This Student Voices episode focuses on the data and studies pointing to the shortcomings of pretrial detention – the significant costs, lack of impact on reducing crime, and shortage of failure-to-appear connections. HLS JD candidate Leann Poarch instead suggests a low-cost, relatively low-tech alternative that may be more effective.

In this Student Voices episode, HLS J.D. candidate Leann Poarch discusses the significant costs of detaining individuals who await trial, such as legal fees, loss of employment, and long-term economic and psychological effects. Given that detaining individuals not yet convicted can cost local governments more than $13 billion, is it time to look into reforming the pretrial system?

In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the fourth in a series on Ethics in the Law, host Jim Greiner talks again with IRB expert Shannon Sewards to discuss the complexities and criteria involved in obtaining waivers of informed consent within the realm of social science and legal research, comparing it to the regulations governing medical research. When does protecting study participants take precedence, and when do critical research needs supersede those of participants?

Why is it so hard logistically to file for divorce when legally some cases are quite simple and uncomplicated? This second divorce study episode of Proof Over Precedent dives into the data behind the hassle factors and shares the surprising results of measuring the pro se accessibility of a court system. Maybe the answer isn’t more lawyers.

When it comes to obtaining a divorce, pro se litigants face significant obstacles, stemming primarily from financial challenges. Without a lawyer, many are ill equipped to undertake the complex paperwork, waiting periods, and logistical hurdles that come with filing for divorce. This first of two divorce study episodes of Proof Over Precedent introduces the randomized controlled trial the A2J Lab undertook to determine how effective pro bono matching services are in providing access to justice for low-income individuals. 

Rogers hearings allow Massachusetts judges to approve treatment plans for involuntarily committed individuals, but the process is criticized for its inefficiency and 99% approval rate. What if procedural reforms could improve outcomes? Replacing district court judges with administrative law judges to oversee hearings and substituting public defenders with mental health professionals as patient advocates could improve outcomes for both the involuntarily committed individuals and the courts—reducing delays, improving patient outcomes, and better utilizing court resources. All we need is an RCT.

In this “Student Voices” episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS student Aarushi Solanki discusses involuntary commitment laws for psychiatric patients in Massachusetts, where the process of holding separate commitment and treatment hearings winds up denying patients access to timely treatment.

Can the presence of legal counsel at a criminal justice defendant’s first court hearing transform their journey through the justice system? Two Texas counties examined this possibility in a now-completed A2J Lab study. Project researchers discuss the results in this Proof Over Precedent episode.

Access to justice via government websites should mean ease of digital access to information. In this Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent, J.D. candidate Spencer Thieme argues for simple and inexpensive upgrades to state and federal government websites to improve accessibility for the nonlawyers and non-government workers.

Early this year, the A2J Lab was expanding globally for the first time, bringing its mission to study access to justice to both Kenya and Tunisia when a federal stop work order abruptly shut down the project. In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, we have no study results to report about the project that intended to look at whether prompt access to quality representation affects legal and social outcomes for defendants in misdemeanors in the two African nations. Instead, we offer a discussion on the Lab’s first global project, the intentions of the study and its progress through January this year, and the lessons learned from both an international project and the discontinuation of the study.

More bankruptcy cases were filed in 2024 than all other civil cases in federal court combined – a factor that should make access to the bankruptcy filing process a priority in the U.S., HLS student Joe Liberman argues in this Student Voices podcast. Part II of this series discusses potential reforms, including changing attorney fee structures, simplifying the bankruptcy process, and making information about legal representation more accessible.

Is the financial reset system too difficult to navigate? In this “Student Voices” episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS J.D. candidate Joe Liberman discusses the complexities and accessibility issues associated with “no-money-down” bankruptcy filings that often hurt the people who can least afford these particular filings.

A recently launched A2J Lab study examines the effectiveness of an education and community resource-focused program at reducing recidivism among low-level offenders. The results could determine whether the program, already in practice for seven years in Toledo, OH, could be an affordable blueprint for other municipal court systems.

In this “Student Voices” episode of Proof Over Precedent, HLS J.D. candidate Rachel Barkin discusses the challenges faced by pro se litigants in complying with civil procedure rules. While interpretation of legal language may be an obstacle, she argues that “deployability” is the more significant hurdle for self-represented litigants.