Proof Over Precedent is a weekly podcast discussing the work of bringing credible evidence to lawyers, judges, and decision makers, to transform the U.S. justice system into an evidence-based field. Listeners will learn from one-on-one interviews with experts in the area of access to justice–researchers, lawyers, professors, law students, data analysts, research participants, and anyone who has an interesting role in this growing area.
In this second episode in the Proof Over Precedent series on demystifying the institutional review board process in law, host Jim Greiner speaks again with IRB expert Shannon Sewards, this time to define human subjects research and differentiate it from medical research.
In this Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent, J.D. candidate Andrew Reed discusses courthouse cell phone bans including unintended consequences, potential solutions to cellphone disruptions, and an opportunity for empirical studies on the topic.
This week, in the first of a series of podcast talks demystifying IRBs, Proof Over Precedent host Jim Greiner talks with IRB expert Shannon Sewards about the importance of IRBs and the Common Rule in ensuring ethical research practices, particularly as it applies to legal research.
Does the medium of family law cases — online or in-person — factor into procedural justice and the satisfaction of litigants in these cases? One U.S. court system wanted to find out. With the study a few months from completion, a third factor has emerged– litigant choice.
Hypothetical situation (that was real for at least one person): You’re issued a traffic ticket requiring appearance in a courthouse 400 miles away from your home. Do you a) absorb the travel costs and skip work to appear in court, b) pay the ticket fine online, if possible, to avoid the hassle, c) hire a lawyer to appear for you, if possible, or d) appear in court via Zoom, if available? The best option seems obvious, but data on Zoom’s effect on court hearings and failure to appear rates are still elusive.
Failure to appear in criminal cases can lead defendants to jail time, draining resources from police, courts, and taxpayer dollars. But the solution may be cheaper and easier than expected. A2J Lab Faculty Director Jim Greiner speaks with Alissa Fishbane, managing director at ideas42, about her research into informational gaps pertaining to court-related issues.
Harvard Law School student Julia Saltzman leads a Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent to discuss legal information programs amid immigration court proceedings for unrepresented noncitizens. Prior evaluations show they reduce detention rates and save taxpayer money. But what about evidence-based research focused on due process?
In this first Student Voices episode of Proof Over Precedent, Harvard Law School student Michael Pusic proposes a possible solution for the 86% of noncitizens detained in immigration court without a lawyer: Enable non-lawyers with specialized training and experience to represent individuals facing deportation. It’s already passed observational tests; now, he says, it’s time for a randomized control trial.
This episode looks into the OpenJustice project, a study combining access to justice and artificial intelligence. It’s just a year in development but already moving relatively quickly through its randomized control trial.
This episode offers a mid-study update on a decades-long randomized control trial, unofficially referred to as the “Child Welfare” project, which evaluates whether families with children who face poverty-related legal and social challenges can avoid unnecessary entries into the child welfare system with the assistance of holistic legal services – a combination of social worker services and a traditional attorney-client relationship. Take a listen.
