Justice Speakers Institute: Recent Episodes

View Details

Executive SummaryAre specialty courts as ineffective as some critics suggest? This article examines that question by reviewing current research, national evaluations, and evidence-based treatment court standards. While acknowledging that treatment courts have evolved through ongoing evaluation and reform, it concludes that many criticisms rely on outdated research, isolated examples, or implementation shortcomings rather than the treatment court model itself. The evidence demonstrates that well-implemented treatment courts reduce recidivism, improve public safety, support recovery, and continue to evolve through research and nationally recognized best practices.

Why the Evidence on Treatment Courts MattersAn article published by the Prison Policy Initiative characterizes specialty courts as a “disappointing form of diversion” and concludes that they have failed to improve public safety, public health, or the lives of those they serve.[1] Its central recommendation is that treatment courts[2] should occupy only a limited role within the justice system, with voluntary community-based interventions replacing them as the preferred response to substance use disorders and other behavioral health conditions.

The article raises some important questions. No justice system institution should be immune from critical examination, and treatment courts are no exception. Their effectiveness depends upon faithful implementation of evidence-based practices, appropriate oversight, and a willingness to evolve as research and clinical knowledge advance. Following evidence-based practices has played an important role in the development of treatment courts over the past three decades.

The article’s conclusions, however, are not supported by the weight of the available evidence. Throughout its analysis, it repeatedly treats implementation deficiencies as evidence that the treatment court model itself is ineffective. It relies heavily on research describing earlier generations of treatment courts, extends the conclusions of several studies beyond what their authors found, and frequently generalizes from isolated jurisdictions and individual practices to the field as a whole. As a result, it presents a picture of modern treatment courts that is inconsistent with current research, national best practice standards, and the substantial evolution of the field.

The article’s analysis is further undermined by a more fundamental problem. It treats a diverse and continually evolving group of specialty courts as though they constitute a single, uniform type of diversion program.[3] That premise is incorrect. While a relatively small number of treatment courts operate as pre-plea diversion programs, the overwhelming majority do not. [4] National survey data indicate that only 6.8 percent of adult drug treatment courts operate on a pre-plea model, while more than 93 percent accept participants after a plea has been entered.[5]

These courts were not designed primarily to divert individuals from the criminal justice system. Rather, they seek to improve public safety by combining judicial supervision, treatment, accountability, and evidence-based interventions to reduce recidivism and support long-term recovery.[6] This distinction is more than a matter of terminology. It defines the objectives against which treatment courts should be evaluated. Measuring post-plea treatment courts by the standards of pre-plea diversion inevitably produces a distorted assessment of their effectiveness. Many of the article’s subsequent criticisms flow directly from this mistaken premise.

Although the article acknowledges the remarkable growth of treatment courts since their emergence in the late 1980s, it instead focuses on Connecticut’s claimed absence of treatment courts and suggests that other jurisdictions may eventually follow the same path.[7] That characterization is incomplete. A federal Drug Treatment Court continues to operate in Connecticut,[8] and the state is actively developing a statewide Mental Health Court intended to serve as a model for future expansion.[9] Rather than demonstrating the decline of treatment courts, developments in Connecticut illustrate the continuing evolution of the field.

Having framed treatment courts primarily as diversion programs, the article advances six principal criticisms:

1. Treatment courts have produced mixed results in improving public safety and public health.
2. Restrictive eligibility criteria exclude many individuals who could benefit from participation.
3. Treatment courts continue to rely on outdated public health practices.
4. Treatment courts do not reduce incarceration and may instead expand the reach of the criminal justice system.
5. Judges rely too heavily on jail sanctions, undermining treatment progress.
6. The multidisciplinary team model improperly exposes personal information and compromises judicial neutrality.

Some of these criticisms identify legitimate implementation challenges that treatment court leaders have spent years addressing through research, policy reform, and national best practice standards. Others, however, are based on outdated evidence, unsupported inferences, or assumptions that do not accurately reflect how modern treatment courts operate. Each deserves careful examination.

Claim One: Treatment Courts Have Had Only Mixed SuccessThe article correctly observes that treatment courts have been studied more extensively than almost any other innovation within the criminal justice system.[10] Ironically, however, it gives comparatively little weight to the strongest evidence available. Rather than focusing on systematic reviews, national evaluations, and government reports, it relies primarily on individual program evaluations and isolated examples of underperforming courts. Those studies are valuable for assessing the effectiveness of specific programs, but they cannot establish whether the treatment court model itself is successful.

Multiple systematic reviews, meta-analyses, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, and the National Institute of Justice have consistently concluded that well-implemented adult drug courts reduce recidivism and substance use compared with traditional case processing.[11] Even one of the studies cited as evidence that treatment courts are ineffective, demonstrates that well-implemented courts produce substantially better outcomes.[12]

The proper conclusion is not that treatment courts “do just ok.”[13] Rather, the evidence demonstrates that well-implemented treatment courts consistently produce better outcomes than traditional criminal case processing while identifying opportunities to improve underperforming programs.

Claim Two: Restrictive Eligibility Limits Access to Treatment CourtsThe article argues that restrictive eligibility criteria place treatment courts beyond the reach of many individuals who could benefit from participation. Historically, that criticism had merit. Early treatment courts often relied on broad offense-based exclusions, categorical disqualifications, and local policies that limited access for individuals with violent offenses or extensive criminal histories. The article, however, relies primarily on studies describing treatment court practices from the early 2000s through approximately 2012 while giving comparatively little attention to the substantial changes that have occurred over the past decade.[14]

Current national best practice standards recommend that eligibility decisions be based on validated risk assessments and clinical need rather than categorical offense-based exclusions, recognizing that individuals with the greatest criminogenic risk and treatment needs often stand to benefit the most from treatment court participation.[15] The article, however, relies primarily on studies describing treatment court practices from the early 2000s through approximately 2012 rather than the current national best practice standards.

The article also argues that prosecutorial and judicial discretion inevitably produces arbitrary admissions and therefore concludes that treatment courts will “inevitably fail.”.[16] That conclusion confuses implementation challenges with the effectiveness of the treatment court model itself. Discretion exists throughout the criminal justice system and, like any discretionary authority, must be exercised within objective standards and appropriate oversight. The appropriate response is to improve by applying evidence-based criteria and transparent policies, not to reject a model whose effectiveness has been repeatedly demonstrated.

What the Evidence Says About Treatment Court EffectivenessClaim Three: The Article Relies on Outdated Characterizations of Modern Treatment CourtsThe article next argues that treatment courts continue to rely on outdated public health principles, particularly by resisting medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).[17] To support that claim, it relies primarily on studies conducted more than a decade ago, when many treatment courts were still developing policies regarding medication-assisted treatment. Those studies accurately described the practices of some early treatment courts, but they no longer reflect the current direction of the field. [18]

Advances in addiction science have fundamentally changed the understanding of substance use disorders and their treatment. National best practice standards now recognize MOUD as the standard of care for opioid use disorder and emphasize that treatment decisions should be made by qualified medical professionals, not judges.[19] Current standards discourage blanket prohibitions on FDA-approved medications and encourage treatment courts to ensure participants have access to all clinically appropriate treatment options.[20] Although implementation is still not universal across treatment courts, the trend has been unmistakable: toward greater acceptance of evidence-based treatment, not continued resistance.[21]

The article acknowledges neither the substantial changes in treatment court practice over the past decade nor the national standards that have embraced current addiction science. By relying primarily on historical evidence while giving comparatively little attention to these developments, it presents an outdated picture of modern treatment courts and reaches conclusions that are no longer supported by the current state of the field.[22]

Claim Four: The Article Overstates the Evidence for Net-WideningThe article argues that treatment courts expand the reach of the criminal justice system rather than reduce it. That conclusion rests largely on treating treatment courts as diversion programs whose principal purpose is to keep individuals entirely outside the justice system. As discussed earlier, that premise does not accurately describe most treatment courts. More than ninety-three percent of adult drug treatment courts operate after a plea has been entered and were designed to improve outcomes for justice-involved individuals through treatment, judicial supervision, and accountability, not to eliminate criminal justice involvement altogether.[23]

To support its net-widening argument, the article relies primarily on a single historical example from Denver, Colorado, where drug filings reportedly increased after the creation of a drug court in 1994. That evidence is insufficient to support the broad conclusion the article draws. An increase in case filings following the creation of one treatment court does not establish that the court caused additional arrests, nor does it demonstrate that the Denver experience was representative of treatment courts nationally. The article elevates a decades-old local correlation and one former judge’s observation into a nationwide conclusion without demonstrating causation or showing that similar patterns occurred elsewhere.

Most importantly, the article never addresses the proper comparison. The relevant question is not whether treatment court participants avoid all contact with the criminal justice system. Most have already entered that system before becoming eligible for treatment court. The appropriate comparison is whether treatment courts produce better outcomes than traditional prosecution, incarceration, or community supervision. On that question, the evidence is remarkably consistent.[24] Systematic reviews have found significantly lower recidivism among treatment court participants than comparable offenders processed through conventional criminal justice systems.[25] These evaluations report fewer rearrests, fewer crimes, fewer days incarcerated, and substantial cost savings.[26] Likewise, the statewide evaluation cited in the article demonstrate reduced prison utilization and shorter periods of incarceration among treatment court participants.[27] These findings directly contradict the article’s assertion that treatment courts simply expand punishment rather than improve outcomes.

Common Criticisms of Treatment Courts ExaminedClaim Five: The Evidence Does Not Support the Article’s Conclusions About Jail SanctionsThe article accurately notes that some early treatment courts relied too heavily on short periods of incarceration to respond to participant noncompliance. What it fails to acknowledge is that this practice has been the subject of extensive research and substantial reform. [28] Once again, the article relies primarily on older studies while giving comparatively little attention to the evolution of treatment court practice over the past decade.

Modern treatment court standards recognize that substance use disorders are chronic medical conditions and that relapse, by itself, should not be viewed as willful misconduct warranting punitive sanctions.[29] National best practice standards increasingly emphasize individualized responses, incentives, treatment adjustments, procedural fairness, and the least restrictive intervention necessary to promote recovery and protect public safety.[30] Jail remains an available response in appropriate circumstances, but it is no longer viewed as the primary or preferred response to treatment-related behavior.[31]

Where it goes too far is in concluding that there is “no evidence” that jail sanctions work. The principal authorities, including the 2005 GAO report, cited by the article do not reach that conclusion.[32] Rather, they concluded, as of 2005, that the available research has not isolated the independent effect of incarceration sanctions from the many other components of treatment courts.[33] That is not evidence that jail sanctions are ineffective; it is recognition that the question has not, at that time, been definitively answered.

The article also overstates the findings of the 2025 NPC Research national survey.[34] The survey reported that some treatment courts continue to use jail sanctions for positive drug tests regardless of a participant’s clinical stabilization.[35]It did not evaluate whether those sanctions improved or worsened treatment outcomes, disrupted recovery, or were imposed without regard to the participant’s individual circumstances.[36] By suggesting that the survey demonstrates the harmful effects of jail sanctions, the article attributes conclusions to the study that the study itself does not make.

The article therefore confuses a historical practice that has been the focus of ongoing reform with a defining characteristic of modern treatment courts. The evidence supports a different conclusion: treatment courts continue to evolve as research identifies more effective and evidence-based responses to participant behavior.[37]

Claim Six: The Article’s Critique of Information Sharing and the Multidisciplinary Team Model Is Not Supported by the EvidenceThe article argues that the collaborative treatment court model improperly exposes personal and clinical information to judges, resulting in excessive scrutiny and punishment.[38] Confidentiality is unquestionably an important concern. It does not follow, however, that the collaborative model is inherently incompatible with due process or participant privacy.

Treatment courts have long recognized the need to balance participant confidentiality with effective judicial supervision.[39] Federal confidentiality regulations,[40] state laws, informed consent procedures, ethical obligations, and nationally recognized best practice standards govern the sharing of treatment information among members of the treatment court team.[41] Information is not shared without legal authority or participant consent, and disclosure is generally limited to what is necessary to support treatment, supervision, and judicial decision-making. The article identifies potential risks associated with information sharing but provides no empirical evidence that treatment courts systematically misuse confidential information or that appropriate information sharing results in poorer participant outcomes.

The article substantially overstates the findings of the Virginia qualitative study.[42] The study explored the experiences of nine treatment court judges and recommended additional judicial training in addiction science.[43] It did not conclude that treatment court judges compromise their neutrality, that multidisciplinary teams increase incarceration, or that judicial involvement keeps participants cycling through jail. Those conclusions are the article author’s interpretation, not the study’s findings. More fundamentally, the article overlooks one of the defining features of modern treatment courts: coordinated decision-making informed by multiple professional perspectives.[44] National best practice standards recognize that complex substance use disorders often require collaboration among the court, treatment providers, community supervision, and other stakeholders.[45] The purpose of the multidisciplinary team is not to increase punishment but to improve decision-making, coordinate services, promote participant engagement, and enhance public safety.

While treatment courts necessarily involve closer collaboration among judges, attorneys, treatment providers, probation officers, and other professionals, the article offers little empirical evidence that this collaborative model produces worse participant outcomes. Instead, it simply assumes that greater judicial engagement is inherently inconsistent with fairness or effective treatment. In the end, the article substitutes speculation about the risks of collaboration for evidence demonstrating that the collaborative model itself produces poorer outcomes.

The Future of Treatment CourtsTreatment courts have not been without shortcomings, and real evaluation has played an important role in their evolution. Some of the issues raised in the article, deserve and are the subject of continued attention. Over the past three and a half decades, the treatment court field has responded to those challenges through research, national best practice standards, advances in addiction science, and the continuous refinement of policy and practice.

The article, however, repeatedly treats implementation difficulties as evidence that the treatment court model itself has failed. In doing so, it relies heavily on research describing earlier generations of treatment courts, extends the findings of several studies beyond the conclusions reached by their authors, and extrapolates from isolated jurisdictions and individual practices to the treatment court field as a whole. The result is an incomplete and outdated portrayal of modern treatment courts that gives insufficient weight to decades of empirical research demonstrating that well-implemented treatment courts improve participant outcomes, reduce recidivism, enhance public safety, and, when compared with traditional criminal case processing, reduce incarceration.[46]

The more important question today is not whether treatment courts should exist, but how they can continue to improve. The evidence overwhelmingly supports continued efforts to expand access to treatment courts that operate in accordance with evidence-based practices, protect due process, ensure equitable access, and provide timely access to effective treatment, including medications for opioid use disorder when clinically appropriate. The goal should not be to abandon a model that has demonstrated its value, but to continue strengthening it through research, accountability, and adherence to nationally recognized best practices.

The treatment court movement has never claimed perfection. It has consistently demonstrated something more important: a willingness to evaluate its performance, acknowledge shortcomings, adapt to new scientific evidence, and improve. That commitment to continuous improvement, not resistance to fact-based evidence, is what has made treatment courts one of the most extensively studied and successful innovations in the modern justice system.

[1] Leah Wang, Specialty Courts: A Disappointing Form of Diversion, Prison Policy Initiative (Feb. 2, 2026).

[2] Although the Prison Policy Initiative article uses the broader term “specialty courts,” this response generally uses the term “treatment courts” because the article’s analysis, cited research, and principal criticisms focus overwhelmingly on treatment courts, particularly adult drug treatment courts. Where appropriate, the broader term “specialty courts” is used to reflect the article’s terminology.

[3] Wang, supra note 1.

[4] Kristen DeVall, Christina Lanier & Lindsay J. Baker, Painting the Current Picture: A National Report on Treatment Courts in the United States (Nat’l Treatment Ct. Res. Ctr. 2023)

[5] Id.

[6] Steven Belenko, The Role of Drug Courts in Promoting Desistance and Recovery: A Merging of Therapy and Accountability, 27 Addiction Rsch. & Theory 3 (2019).

[7] Wang, supra note 1.

[8] https://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/support-court

[9] Chief Justice: Initiative Underway for Specialized Court Dedicated to Behavioral Health; Will Serve as Template for Expansion

[10] Id.

[11] See, Belenko supra note 5, Caroline I. Jalain, Paul A. Lucas & George E. Higgins, Assessing the Effectiveness of Mental Health Courts in Reducing Recidivism: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis, Justice Evaluation Journal (2024), U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-12-53, Adult Drug Courts: Studies Show Courts Reduce Recidivism, but DOJ Could Enhance Future Performance Measure Revision Efforts (2011), Shelli B. Rossman et al., The Multi-Site Adult Drug Court Evaluation: Executive Summary (National Institute of Justice 2011),

[12] Id.

[13] Wang, supra note 1.

[14] Id.

[15] All Rise, Adult Treatment Court Best Practice Standards (2d ed. Jan. 2026).

[16] Wang, supra note 1.

[17] Id.

[18] All Rise, supra note 15.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Ahmed F. Z. Ahmed, Beth Andraka-Christou, Melissa H. Clark, Ria Totaram, David N. Atkins & Brandon del Pozo, Barriers to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder in the Court System: Availability, Provider “Trustworthiness,” and Cost, 10 Health & Just. art. 24 (2022).

[22] DeVall, supra note 3.

[23] Id.

[24] See footnote 10.

[25] See footnote 10.

[26] See footnote 10.

[27] Amanda B. Cissner, Michael Rempel, Donald Farole, Jr., Jennifer Reichert, Fred Cheesman, Rachel Swaner, Jennifer H. Magnani, Mary Kay Kane, Dana Kralstein & Joseph Lee, A Statewide Evaluation of New York Adult Drug Courts: Identifying Which Policies Work Best (Ctr. for Ct. Innovation 2013).

[28] Id.

[29] All Rise, supra note 15.

[30] Id.

[31] Id.

[32] U.S. Gov’t Accountability Off., GAO-05-219, Adult Drug Courts: Evidence Indicates Recidivism Reductions and Mixed Results for Other Outcomes (2005).

[33] Id.

[34] NPC Rsch., Health Risk Prevention in Treatment Courts (2025).

[35] Id.

[36] Id.

[37] DeVall, supra note 3.

[38] Wang, supra note 1.

[39] All Rise, supra note 15.

[40] Standards for Privacy of Individually Identifiable Health Information, 45 C.F.R. pts. 160 & 164 (2026).

[41] All Rise, supra note 15.

[42] Jennifer Smith Ramey, Fred Milacci, Fred Volk & David Jenkins, “All Hands on Deck”: A Phenomenological Study of Lived Experiences of Drug Treatment Court Judges, 3 Drug Ct. Rev. 54 (2024)

[43] Id.

[44] All Rise, supra note 15.

[45] Id.

[46] See footnote 10.

The post Specialty Courts: What the Evidence Actually Shows appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Few professions understand the power of words better than those who work in the justice system. Judges carefully choose the language they use from the bench. Attorneys debate the meaning of a single word in a statute or contract. Prosecutors and defense attorneys know that the way a question is asked can influence the answer that is given. Every day, we rely on words to explain the law, establish facts, advocate for our positions, and hold individuals accountable.

We understand that words have consequences. Yet some of the most important words we use are not found in statutes, legal briefs, or judicial opinions. They are the words we choose when speaking to the people who stand before us. That is especially true in treatment courts.

Nearly a decade ago, I wrote about the importance of using person-first language when discussing substance use disorders.[i] That conversation remains just as important today. The words we use influence how individuals are viewed, how they are treated, and whether they feel respected or stigmatized. Research has consistently shown that language affects perception, even among trained professionals.[ii] Simply changing the description of an individual from a “drug user” to “a person with a substance use disorder” can influence whether that person is viewed as deserving of treatment or punishment.

That research and more[iii] has become foundational in helping us understand the relationship between language and stigma. But stigma is only part of the story. The words we choose do more than shape how we view people. They shape how we deliver justice.

Language Shapes PerceptionEvery conversation begins with perception. Before we make a recommendation, impose a sanction, or celebrate a participant’s success, we have already formed impressions about the individual standing before us. Those impressions are influenced by experience, education, and, whether we realize it or not, by the language we use and hear every day.

Labels have a remarkable ability to simplify complex human beings. When a person becomes “an addict,” “a manipulator,” or “non-compliant,” it becomes easier to see the label than the individual. We stop seeing a parent trying to rebuild relationships, the veteran coping with trauma, or a young adult struggling with a chronic disease. The label begins to define the person.

That is how stigma develops. Stigma is rarely created by a single conversation or a single comment. More often, it grows quietly through repeated words and assumptions until they become part of how we think.

Perception Shapes InteractionHow we perceive people inevitably influences how we speak to them. If we view someone as incapable of change, our conversations often become cynical. If we see someone only through the lens of past failures, our expectations begin to reflect those failures.

Conversely, when we recognize that recovery is possible and that substance use disorders are treatable medical conditions, our conversations naturally change. We continue to hold participants accountable for their choices, address violations, and respond to setbacks. But in treatment courts, accountability is more than a response to misconduct, it is part of the treatment process, encouraging honesty, reinforcing responsibility, and supporting long-term recovery.

That distinction matters. Accountability remains a cornerstone of treatment courts, but it is intentionally paired with evidence-based treatment, judicial leadership, and meaningful support to promote lasting behavioral change. The language we use either advances that mission or undermines it. Words that reinforce stigma can become barriers to engagement and recovery, while words that communicate respect, hope, and accountability help create an environment where lasting change is possible.

Ultimately, the effectiveness of treatment courts depends not only on the decisions they make, but on how those decisions are communicated. Accountability, treatment, and support are experienced through interactions between participants and the professionals who serve them. That is why language matters. It is the means by which the principles of treatment courts are put into practice.

Interaction Shapes JusticeJustice is experienced through people. Participants may not remember every case discussed during a hearing or every legal argument presented by counsel. They may not remember the precise wording of a court order or the legal reasoning behind a particular decision. But many will remember how they were treated.

This is one of the fundamental principles of procedural justice.[iv] Decades of research have demonstrated that people are more likely to view the justice system as legitimate, and more likely to comply with court orders, when they believe they have been treated with fairness, respect, and dignity, when they have been given an opportunity to be heard, and when they perceive the decision-making process as impartial and trustworthy. In other words, justice is measured not only by the outcome, but also by the process.

How do treatment court participants experience those principles? Through our words. They experience respect through the language we use. They experience dignity through the conversations we have. They experience voice when we genuinely listen. They experience fairness when our words demonstrate impartiality and consistency.

Every conversation contributes to the culture of a courtroom, such as:

• A judge’s comments from the bench.
• A prosecutor’s recommendation.
• A defense attorney’s advocacy.
• A probation officer’s guidance.
• A coordinator’s encouragement.

Each interaction either reinforces stigma or reduces it. Each conversation either strengthens trust or weakens it. Each word either reinforces the legitimacy of the court or undermines it. Justice is not experienced only through the orders issued. It is experienced through the words that bring those orders to life.

More Than Political CorrectnessSome dismiss discussions about language as little more than political correctness. That misses the point. Choosing words carefully is not about avoiding difficult conversations or ignoring personal responsibility. Treatment courts require honesty, accountability, and consequences. Those principles are essential.

But accountability and dignity are not competing values. They reinforce one another. When we communicate respect while maintaining high expectations, we create an environment where individuals are more willing to engage in treatment, accept responsibility, and continue moving toward recovery. That is not simply good communication. It is evidence-based justice.

A Responsibility We All ShareEvery member of the treatment court team influences the culture of the courtroom. Not only through decisions. Not only through policies. But through conversations. The words we choose shape perceptions. Perceptions influence stigma. Stigma affects relationships. And those relationships ultimately influence how justice is experienced.

Justice begins with the rule of law. But it is often remembered through the conversations that bring those laws to life. Words matter. Not simply because they describe justice. But because they help create it.

[i] David J. Wallace, The Power of Language: Ending Stigma in Substance Use Disorders, May 16, 2017.

[ii] Kelly, Westerhoff,Does it matter how we refer to individuals with substance-related conditions? A randomized study of two commonly used terms. International Journal of Drug Policy, Volume 21, Issue 3, May 2010, Pages 202-207.

[iii] See Anna P Goddu, et. al. Do Words Matter? Stigmatizing Language and the Transmission of Bias in the Medical Record, J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Jan 26;33(5):685–691; National Institutes of Health, Words matter: language can reduce mental health and addiction stigma, NIH leaders say, July 19, 2021; Dioanne “JoJo” Adsuara, Dave Ofori, Stigma: How Vocabulary and Language Can Make a Difference, Behavioral Health News, April 8, 2023.

[iv] What is Procedural Justice? Justice Speakers Institute.

The post Words Matter: How Language Shapes Justice in Treatment Courts appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Substance use disorders present one of the most significant and complex challenges facing the justice system. Every day, judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, correctional professionals, probation and parole officers, treatment providers, and policymakers encounter individuals whose criminal behavior is directly or indirectly driven by alcohol or drug use. Yet despite decades of experience, many justice systems continue to struggle with the same questions: How do we improve public safety while promoting recovery? How do we hold individuals accountable while recognizing the medical realities of addiction? How do we reduce recidivism, prevent overdose deaths, and help individuals build stable, productive lives?

These are old questions. What is changing is our understanding of the answers.

Why Substance Use Disorders Challenge the Justice SystemOver the past twenty-five years, an extraordinary body of research has emerged from the fields of medicine, neuroscience, public health, behavioral health, criminology, implementation science, and corrections. Numerous studies have examined medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD), treatment courts, community supervision, correctional healthcare, reentry programs, overdose prevention, peer recovery services, implementation strategies, and cross-system collaboration.[1]Although these studies differ in their methods, populations, and settings, they repeatedly arrive at remarkably consistent conclusions.[2]

Taken together, this body of research leads to several consistent conclusions: Substance use disorders are treatable,[3]recovery is possible, [4] evidence-based interventions improve outcomes,[5] accountability and recovery are complementary rather than competing goals,[6] stigma undermines recovery,[7] and long-term success depends upon collaboration and sustained support across multiple systems.[8]

These findings call for more than individual program improvements. They require a comprehensive framework for how the justice system responds to substance use disorders.

Five Principles for Addressing Substance Use Disorders in the Justice SystemThat framework is built upon five fundamental principles[9]:

• Treatable – Substance use disorders are chronic but treatable conditions, and recovery is possible.
• Accountability – Recovery and accountability are complementary, not competing, goals.
• Evidence – Justice decisions should be guided by research, science, and proven practices.
• Stigma – Reducing stigma improves engagement, treatment participation, and recovery outcomes.
• Support – Recovery requires coordinated support that extends beyond the courtroom and correctional facility.

These are not abstract ideals. They are practical principles grounded in decades of research and the experience of justice professionals across the country. Together, they provide a framework that helps justice systems make better decisions, improve public safety, and create greater opportunities for long-term recovery.

Why Accountability and Recovery Work TogetherImportantly, these principles should not be viewed in isolation. They are interconnected and mutually reinforcing.

Recognizing that substance use disorders are treatable without maintaining accountability risks minimizing individual responsibility. Demanding accountability without recognizing the effectiveness of treatment ignores decades of scientific evidence. Implementing evidence-based practices while allowing stigma to influence decision-making undermines fairness and engagement. Providing treatment without ensuring long-term support and continuity of care leaves individuals vulnerable during the very transitions when they are at the greatest risk of relapse or overdose.

The research consistently demonstrates that successful outcomes occur when these principles work together.

Perhaps the most significant development in recent years has been the shift in the questions researchers are asking. Early studies focused primarily on whether treatment worked.[10] Researchers compared treatment approaches, measured reductions in substance use, examined criminal justice outcomes, and evaluated the effectiveness of medications for opioid use disorder.[11] Those questions were essential, and they produced a strong body of evidence demonstrating that evidence-based treatment improves both health and public safety outcomes.[12]

Today, however, the conversation has evolved. The question is no longer simply whether treatment works. The more important question is whether justice systems are structured to support treatment, recovery, and long-term success.[13]

Building Justice Systems That Support Long-Term RecoveryResearch increasingly focuses on implementation, organizational leadership, cross-system collaboration, continuity of care, reentry planning, community supervision, and sustained engagement in treatment.[14] These studies recognize that even the most effective interventions cannot succeed if they are poorly implemented, interrupted during critical transitions, or delivered within systems that fail to coordinate their efforts.

This represents an important shift in perspective. Recovery does not begin and end in a courtroom. It does not begin and end in a treatment program. It does not begin and end in a correctional facility.

Recovery occurs across a continuum that includes law enforcement, the courts, jails and prisons, community supervision, behavioral healthcare, peer support, housing providers, employers, families, and community organizations. Every transition along that continuum presents both an opportunity and a risk. Every agency plays a role. Every decision matters.

One theme appears repeatedly throughout the research and deserves particular attention: continuity.

Continuity of Care and Recovery SupportIndividuals leaving incarceration face one of the highest risks of overdose, relapse, and treatment interruption.[15]Research consistently demonstrates that outcomes improve when treatment continues without interruption, when reentry planning begins before release, when community providers are engaged early, and when justice agencies collaborate rather than operate independently.[16]

Continuity extends beyond treatment. It includes consistent expectations, coordinated supervision, effective communication among agencies, ongoing evaluation of programs, and long-term recovery supports. In many respects, continuity is the thread that connects all five principles discussed in this series.

Justice systems have long recognized the importance of accountability.[17] Increasingly, they are recognizing that accountability is most effective when paired with evidence-based practices and meaningful opportunities for recovery. Holding individuals accountable does not require abandoning compassion, and providing treatment does not require sacrificing public safety. In fact, the evidence suggests that these objectives are closely aligned.[18]

Communities are safer when substance use disorders are effectively treated. Victims benefit when individuals successfully recover and are less likely to reoffend. Families are strengthened when parents achieve recovery and maintain stability. Justice agencies operate more effectively when they rely on research rather than assumptions. These are not competing goals; they are complementary ones.

This series is designed for the multidisciplinary professionals who make up today’s justice system. Judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, correctional administrators, probation and parole professionals, treatment providers, behavioral health specialists, policymakers, and community leaders each approach substance use disorders from different perspectives and carry different responsibilities. Yet the research increasingly demonstrates that no single profession and no single agency can achieve lasting success alone.

The Future of Substance Use Disorder Responses in the Justice SystemThe future of responses to substance use disorders in the justice system will depend upon our ability to work collaboratively, apply the best available evidence, reduce unnecessary barriers to treatment and recovery, and maintain accountability while recognizing the realities of addiction and recovery.

The Five Principles presented in this series are intended to provide a practical roadmap for accomplishing those goals.

In the articles that follow, we will examine each principle individually, explore the research supporting it, discuss its implications for justice professionals, and identify practical strategies that can be implemented in courts, correctional institutions, community supervision agencies, and communities across the country.

Our hope is not simply to encourage discussion, but to help justice professionals build systems that are more effective, more evidence-based, and more responsive to the realities of substance use disorders. When justice and science work together, accountability and recovery can reinforce one another, public safety can be strengthened, and more individuals can successfully transition from involvement in the justice system to productive lives in their communities.

[1] Alexandra Duncan & Maria Schiff, Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in Jails and Prisons, The Pew Charitable Trusts(Apr. 23, 2020).

[2] Id.

[3] Dagmar Hedrich, Paula Alves, Michael Farrell, Heino Stöver, Lars Møller & Soraya Mayet, The Effectiveness of Opioid Maintenance Treatment in Prison Settings: A Systematic Review, 107 Addiction 501 (2012).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Judge Brian MacKenzie, How Treatment Courts Can Transform OUD Recovery, Justice Speakers Institute (Mar. 18, 2025).

[7] Id.

[8] Julie Hanna, Sheryl Kubiak, Emily Pasman, Ayorkor Gaba, Michael Andre, David Smelson & Debra A. Pinals, Evaluating the Implementation of a Prisoner Re-entry Initiative for Individuals with Opioid Use and Mental Health Disorders: Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research in a Cross-System Initiative, 108 J. Substance Abuse Treatment 104 (2020).

[9] The Five Principles described herein represent the Justice Speakers Institute’s synthesis of the current literature regarding effective justice responses to substance use disorders. They are derived from a substantial body of research demonstrating that substance use disorders are treatable; that evidence-based interventions improve health and criminal justice outcomes; that successful implementation requires accountability, leadership, and organizational fidelity; and that long-term recovery depends upon coordinated support across correctional systems, healthcare providers, community supervision agencies, behavioral health providers, peer support organizations, and community resources. See, e.g., Simon Larney, The Effectiveness of Opioid Maintenance Treatment in Prison Settings: A Systematic Review, 105 Addiction 501 (2010); Julie Hanna et al., Evaluating the Implementation of a Prisoner Re-entry Initiative for Individuals with Opioid Use and Mental Health Disorders: Application of the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research in a Cross-System Initiative, 108 J. Substance Abuse Treatment 104 (2020); Alexandra Duncan & Maria Schiff, Opioid Use Disorder Treatment in Jails and Prisons, The Pew Charitable Trusts (Apr. 23, 2020); Adam J. Yatsco et al., Developing Interagency Collaboration to Address the Opioid Epidemic: A Scoping Review of Joint Criminal Justice and Healthcare Initiatives, 83 Int’l J. Drug Pol’y 102849 (2020).

[10] Hedrich et al., supra note 3.

[11] See Hedrich et al., supra note 3; Elizabeth A. Evans et al., Criminal Justice Outcomes Over 5 Years After Randomization to Buprenorphine-Naloxone or Methadone Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder, Drug & Alcohol Dependence (2019); Sarah Larney, Barbara Toson, Lucy Burns & Kate Dolan, Effect of Prison-Based Opioid Substitution Treatment and Post-Release Retention in Treatment on Risk of Re-incarceration, 107 Addiction 372 (2012).

[12] Id.

[13] MacKenzie, supra note 6.

[14] See Hedrich et al., supra note 3; Adam J. Yatsco et al., Developing Interagency Collaboration to Address the Opioid Epidemic: A Scoping Review of Joint Criminal Justice and Healthcare Initiatives, 83 Int’l J. Drug Pol’y 102849 (2020); Emily A. Wang et al., The Transitions Clinic Network Post-Incarceration Addiction Treatment, Healthcare, and Social Support (TCN-PATHS): A Hybrid Type 1 Effectiveness Trial of Enhanced Primary Care to Improve Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Outcomes Following Release from Jail, Contemporary Clinical Trials(2021).

[15] Leo Beletsky, Lindsay LaSalle, Michelle Newman, Janine Paré, James Tam & Alyssa Tochka, Fatal Re-Entry: Legal and Programmatic Opportunities to Curb Opioid Overdose Among Individuals Newly Released from Incarceration, 7 N.E. U. L.J. 155 (2015).

[16] Emily A. Wang et al., The Transitions Clinic Network Post-Incarceration Addiction Treatment, Healthcare, and Social Support (TCN-PATHS): A Hybrid Type 1 Effectiveness Trial of Enhanced Primary Care to Improve Opioid Use Disorder Treatment Outcomes Following Release from Jail (2021); Leo Beletsky et al., supra note 15; Hanna et al., supra note 8.

[17] MacKenzie, supra note 6.

[18] Id.

The post An Effective Framework for Responding to Substance Use Disorders in the Justice System appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) and David Wallace, Co-Presidents, Mack Jenkins and Cynthia Herriott, Vice Presidents, Justice Speakers Institute

The Pace of Change is AcceleratingThe justice system has always evolved. Throughout history, courts, law enforcement agencies, prosecutors, defense attorneys, community supervision professionals, and treatment providers have adapted to new laws, emerging research, changing technology, and evolving public expectations. Today however, due to technology, the pace of change is unlike anything we have experienced before.

Artificial intelligence is beginning to reshape legal research, court administration, and case management. Advances in behavioral health research continue to improve our understanding of trauma, addiction, and recovery. New technologies are transforming community supervision, while increasing demands for transparency and accountability are changing how justice agencies engage with the public they serve.

These developments present extraordinary opportunities, but they also require thoughtful leadership. Every innovation should prompt the same questions: Does it improve justice? Does it protect fairness? Does it strengthen public confidence? Does it preserve the integrity of the legal system?

Technology alone cannot answer those questions. People must.

Knowledge is the Foundation of Better Justice At the Justice Speakers Institute, we have long believed that better justice begins with better-informed justice professionals.

For more than a decade, JSI has worked alongside judges, attorneys, prosecutors, law enforcement leaders, probation professionals, treatment providers, and policymakers to translate research into practical guidance. Our goal has never been simply to discuss emerging issues. Our goal is to provide education and resources that help justice professionals make better decisions in real courtrooms, real agencies, and real communities.

Whether the subject is procedural fairness, treatment courts, scientific evidence, impaired driving, substance use disorders, community supervision, or artificial intelligence, our philosophy remains consistent: decisions should be grounded in sound science, professional ethics, practical experience, and respect for the rule of law.

Innovation Must Strengthen Justice, Not Replace It Innovation has become one of the defining characteristics of today’s justice system. Courts are exploring artificial intelligence, agencies are adopting new supervision technologies, and researchers continue to provide new insights into effective interventions.

Innovation, however, is never the destination. New technology should improve decision-making, not replace professional judgment. Artificial intelligence may help organize information, identify patterns, or improve administrative efficiency, but it cannot exercise discretion, evaluate credibility, understand human circumstances, or apply the values upon which justice depends.

As Professor Stephanie Dick of Simon Fraser University has observed, AI governance is not really about governing the AI itself. It is about governing the human practices through which AI is adopted. That distinction should guide every justice agency considering these tools: the standards that matter most are not technical benchmarks, but the judgment, training, and accountability of the people using them.

The same principle applies beyond technology. Every new policy, procedure, or practice should ultimately be measured against one standard: does it help create a justice system that is fairer, more effective, and worthy of the public’s trust?

Collaboration Creates Better SolutionsNo single profession has all the answers.

One of the most encouraging developments in recent years has been the growing collaboration among judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, law enforcement officers, probation professionals, behavioral health experts, researchers, and policymakers. Many of the most significant advances in justice have occurred because professionals from different disciplines were willing to learn from one another and work toward common goals.

That collaborative spirit has always been central to the Justice Speakers Institute. Through our training programs, consulting services, publications, research projects, and the Justice Speaks podcast, we seek to bring together experienced practitioners and thought leaders who are willing to share ideas, challenge assumptions, and promote evidence-based solutions.

The addition of new associates to JSI reflects that continuing commitment. As justice evolves, so must the breadth of expertise available to support it.

Looking Toward the FutureThe challenges facing the justice system will not become simpler in the years ahead. Emerging technologies, changing legal landscapes, behavioral health needs, evolving public expectations, and increasing demands for accountability will continue to reshape the work of justice professionals.

Meeting those challenges will require more than new tools. It will require informed leadership, continuous learning, thoughtful collaboration, and a willingness to adapt while remaining grounded in the fundamental principles of justice.

Those principles are timeless: fairness, integrity, accountability, transparency, and respect for the rule of law. They should guide every innovation we adopt and every decision we make.

Our Commitment Since its founding, the Justice Speakers Institute has sought to be more than a training organization. We strive to serve as a trusted resource for justice professionals who are committed to improving the systems in which they serve.

As we continue to expand our work through education, research, publications, consulting, and partnerships across the United States and internationally, our commitment remains unchanged: to provide practical, evidence-based guidance that helps justice leaders prepare for the challenges of today while building a stronger justice system for tomorrow.

The future of justice is not something that simply happens to us. It is something we shape through informed leadership, sound judgment, and an unwavering commitment to continual improvement.

We invite you to join us as we continue that work together.

The post Leadership, Innovation, and the Future of Justice appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #96This episode of Justice Speaks continues our series highlighting leaders who are shaping the future of community supervision and the justice system. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

How Gene Cotter Built a Career in Community SupervisionIn this episode, we interview Mr. Gene Cotter, State Probation Administrator for Nebraska Probation Administration. Mr. Cotter begins by describing how he entered the probation profession almost by accident. What started as an internship quickly became a lifelong calling. Over the course of nearly four decades, he served in a variety of roles including adult probation, juvenile probation, intensive supervision, specialized substance abuse supervision programs, and leadership positions before ultimately becoming Nebraska’s State Probation Administrator.

Throughout the conversation, Mr. Cotter’s passion for community corrections is unmistakable. He reflects on the unique rewards of probation work, particularly the opportunity to witness long-term success stories. Whether seeing former clients reunite with their families, maintain recovery, or build productive lives years after supervision ends, Mr. Cotter explains that these moments have reinforced his commitment to public service throughout his career.

Evidence-Based Practices and the Future of Community SupervisionMr. Cotter explains that the state recently celebrated two decades of implementing evidence-based approaches to supervision and intervention. Rather than relying solely on traditional caseload models, Nebraska has adopted a workload-based approach that more accurately reflects the time and resources required to supervise individuals with varying levels of risk and need.

Mr. Cotter discusses the critical role probation officers play in Nebraska’s justice system. Beyond supervision, probation officers conduct comprehensive biopsychosocial evaluations and risk assessments that help judges make informed sentencing decisions. He explains how the workload model accounts for all aspects of a probation officer’s responsibilities, including direct client contact, training, meetings, and administrative duties. For example, officers supervising high-risk sex offenders may be responsible for no more than seven individuals due to the intensive nature of the work involved.

Redefining Success in Community CorrectionsThe conversation also explores Nebraska’s efforts to better define success in community corrections. While recidivism remains an important measure, Mr. Cotter notes that Nebraska is working with researchers at the University of Nebraska to develop broader outcome measures. These include housing stability, employment, access to behavioral health services, and other indicators that provide a more complete picture of an individual’s progress and long-term success.

Technology and Artificial Intelligence in Community SupervisionThe discussion also explores the growing role of technology in community supervision. Mr. Cotter describes Nebraska’s use of GPS monitoring, transdermal alcohol monitoring, sweat patches, and remote reporting systems to supervise individuals based on their risk level. While supportive of technological innovation, he emphasizes the importance of careful implementation and maintaining human judgment in decision-making processes.

Looking ahead, Mr. Cotter shares his interest in the potential application of artificial intelligence and predictive analytics within probation. He envisions systems that could analyze supervision data to identify periods when individuals may be at increased risk of relapse or noncompliance, allowing probation officers to intervene proactively. At the same time, he stresses the importance of human oversight and thoughtful safeguards when considering the use of AI in justice settings.

Workforce Challenges Facing Community Supervision AgenciesAnother challenge discussed during the interview is the declining interest in public service careers. Mr. Cotter notes that probation departments across the country are facing recruitment difficulties, with applicant pools shrinking dramatically compared to previous decades. He also highlights the continuing behavioral health crisis, including the prevalence of mental health and substance use disorders among justice-involved populations, and the ongoing need for resources to address these challenges effectively.

Treatment Courts and the Future of Community SupervisionThe conversation concludes with a discussion of treatment courts and problem-solving courts. Mr. Cotter discusses the research supporting these specialized court models and their ability to improve outcomes while enhancing public safety. He views treatment courts as a vital component of modern community corrections and an important part of the future of the justice system.

As he reflects on the future of community supervision, Mr. Cotter emphasizes the need to continue embracing evidence-based practices, leveraging technology responsibly, and finding innovative ways to support individuals in the community while protecting public safety.

We wish to thank Mr. Gene Cotter for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post The Future of Community Supervision: A Conversation with Nebraska Probation Administrator Gene Cotter appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Recently, a federal judge in Mississippi took the extraordinary step of removing all four attorneys from a civil lawsuit after discovering that both sides had submitted court filings containing fake legal citations generated by artificial intelligence.[1] The sanctions went far beyond a simple reprimand. The court barred two of the attorneys who had appeared pro hac vice[2] from appearing before the Northern District of Mississippi for two years, imposed monetary sanctions against all four lawyers, and canceled the scheduled trial.[3] What began as a routine breach of contract dispute over attorney fees became the most recent example of the risks associated with the uncritical use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the legal profession.

The Mississippi AI Sanctions CaseThe court found that attorneys for both the plaintiff and the defense had relied upon AI-generated legal research that contained citations to cases that did not exist.[4] During a hearing, the attorneys acknowledged that they had failed to independently verify the authorities cited in their filings.[5] One attorney reportedly stated that she was unaware that AI systems could generate fictitious cases.[6] The judge concluded that the attorneys had violated their professional obligations by certifying that the information submitted to the court was accurate when, in fact, it was not.[7]

The case drew attention because it marked the first-time attorneys for both sides submitted AI-assisted briefs containing fictitious citations. The problem was not that mistakes were made; the problem was that no one caught them before they reached the court. There is a lesson here that is not about attorneys, or even about AI. It is about professional accountability.

As courts, justice agencies, and legal professionals increasingly adopt AI tools, professional accountability becomes critically important. Human judgement is not merely another AI guardrail. It is the guardrail that makes all other guardrails possible.

The Temptation of AutomationAI offers tremendous promise. It can summarize documents, draft reports, identify patterns in large datasets, assist with legal research, and reduce administrative burdens that consume valuable staff time.[8] AI support can improve efficiency and expand access to an attorneys access to information. However, efficiency is not the same as accuracy. Speed is not the same as professional judgment.

Large language model AI systems are designed to produce responses that sound authoritative and persuasive.[9] They can do this exceptionally well. Therein lies the danger, users may begin to assume that AI confident answers are the correct answers.

The Risks of AI Hallucinations in Legal PracticeThe recent sanctions case demonstrates exactly what can happen when professionals place too much trust in technology and too little emphasis on verification.

The challenge is not that legal authorities can be misrepresented. Lawyers and judges have misrepresented cases as long as courts have existed. The challenge is that AI can invent a case that never existed and present it with the same appearance of legitimacy as a real one.

Professional Accountability Requires Independent VerificationJudges and lawyers cannot assume that professional accountability exists because a person remains somewhere in the process. That assumption is flawed. A lawyer who automatically accepts an AI case citation without scrutiny is not being accountable. A lawyer who files an AI-generated brief without verification is not exercising oversight. And a judge who relies exclusively on an AI-generated analysis without independent review is not exercising oversight.

AI Can Assist, But Responsibility Cannot Be DelegatedThe Mississippi case should not be viewed as a story about the dangers of AI. It should be viewed as a reminder that technology does not eliminate professional responsibility. Whether the work product comes from a junior associate, a law clerk, a legal research service, or an AI system, the obligation remains the same: verify, review, and exercise independent judgment. As artificial intelligence becomes more common throughout the justice system, professional accountability must remain firmly in human hands. AI may assist the process, but responsibility for the outcome can never be delegated to a machine.

[1] Debra Cassens Weiss, Federal Judge Removes 4 Plaintiff and Defense Attorneys over AI Errors, ABA J. (June 10, 2026),

[2] Pro hac vice is a legal term that refers to a lawyer who is licensed in one jurisdiction but is granted permission to appear in a specific case in another jurisdiction where the lawyer is not licensed.

[3] Weiss, supra, note 1

[4] Id

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Brian MacKenzie, AI-Generated Legal Writing, Justice Speakers Institute (June 5, 2026).

[9] Id

The post Professional Accountability: The Most Important AI Guardrail for Lawyers and Courts appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #96This episode of Justice Speaks continues its examination of leadership, reform, and innovation within community supervision and the broader criminal legal system. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

In this episode, we interview Dr. Carmen Gomez, a leader in probation and pretrial services in Massachusetts. Through her decades of experience in supervision, rehabilitation, and executive leadership, Dr. Gomez offers a thoughtful and candid perspective on the evolving role of probation and the importance of maintaining humanity within the justice system.

Massachusetts Probation Leadership and Community SupervisionDr. Gomez begins by discussing her professional journey, which started in federal government work before transitioning into probation in Massachusetts. Over the years, she served in a variety of increasingly significant leadership positions, including supervising specialized populations, serving as Chief Probation Officer in Chelsea District Court, and eventually becoming Deputy Commissioner. Throughout the discussion, Dr. Gomez reflects on the personal and professional values that shaped her career, emphasizing a deep commitment to helping individuals involved in the court system rebuild their lives and recognize their own potential.

Pretrial Services and Diversion Programs in MassachusettsA major focus of the episode is the role of pretrial services and diversion programming in reducing unnecessary system involvement while improving outcomes for individuals and communities. Dr. Gomez explains how Massachusetts has worked to develop programs designed to reduce barriers and connect individuals with meaningful support services before deeper involvement in the system occurs. Among the initiatives discussed is a groundbreaking partnership with MassHealth that allows probation personnel to verify or establish healthcare coverage for individuals at the earliest stages of supervision. This effort significantly reduces delays in obtaining treatment, evaluations, and services, particularly for individuals struggling with substance use disorders or behavioral health challenges.

Human-Centered Approaches to SupervisionThe conversation also explores the philosophy behind effective hiring practices in probation and pretrial services. Dr. Gomez stresses that successful supervision professionals must possess more than technical knowledge or enforcement skills. She highlights empathy, compassion, emotional intelligence, and the ability to understand the human condition as essential qualities for anyone working with vulnerable populations. According to Dr. Gomez, effective supervision requires professionals who can balance accountability with dignity while recognizing that many individuals entering the system have already experienced significant trauma, instability, and failure before ever appearing in court.

Language, Fairness, and the Criminal Legal SystemThe discussion then centers on Dr. Gomez’s perspective regarding the language often used to describe the system itself. She explains why she increasingly refers to it as the “criminal legal system” rather than the “criminal justice system,” noting that justice is not always experienced equally by those who encounter it. Dr. Gomez emphasizes that policies and procedures must always be grounded in compassion, fairness, and respect for human dignity while still maintaining accountability and protecting community safety. She reminds listeners that individuals under supervision are far more than case numbers or docket entries; they are human beings deserving of respect and meaningful opportunity.

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of ProbationShe addresses the growing role of technology and artificial intelligence within community supervision. Dr. Gomez discusses both the opportunities and concerns associated with emerging technologies, expressing optimism that technology can help probation professionals work more effectively by improving data analysis, communication, and resource coordination. At the same time, she cautions that technology must remain a tool controlled by human judgment rather than replacing meaningful human decision-making. The conversation includes discussion about the importance of guardrails surrounding artificial intelligence and ensuring that supervision systems continue to prioritize individualized and person-centered approaches.

Dr. Gomez also speaks candidly about broader challenges facing the criminal legal system, particularly the reality that many individuals entering supervision have experienced repeated failures by educational systems, healthcare systems, social services, or family structures long before court involvement occurs. She advocates for a holistic approach that recognizes these underlying issues and seeks to address root causes rather than focusing exclusively on compliance and punishment. Throughout the interview, she repeatedly emphasizes the importance of individualized assessment and avoiding unrealistic expectations that may unintentionally set people up for failure.

Leadership Lessons from Dr. Carmen GomezFinally, the discussion turns toward leadership itself. Dr. Gomez shares her belief that leaders should shift away from framing workplace interactions as “difficult conversations” and instead approach them as “important conversations.” She highlights the importance of creating healthy, safe, and supportive environments not only for individuals under supervision but also for probation and pretrial professionals who carry significant emotional and professional burdens in their work.

We wish to thank Dr. Carmen Gomez for sharing her experience, insight, and vision for the future of community supervision on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this episode of Justice Speaks.

The post Dr. Carmen Gomez on Probation Leadership and Community Supervision appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Artificial intelligence regulation is often discussed as though it will emerge primarily through legislation or federal agency action.[1] Congress debates AI bills. State legislatures consider safety mandates. International organizations publish ethical principles and governance frameworks. Yet another force is rapidly shaping the future of AI regulation, one that may ultimately prove more immediate and influential than formal legislation: tort litigation.[2]

A growing body of legal scholarship and emerging case law suggests that courts are beginning to apply traditional product liability principles to artificial intelligence systems, particularly generative AI and chatbot platforms.[3] The result may be a regulatory framework driven not first by lawmakers, but by judges, juries, litigants, and evolving tort doctrines.

Why AI Tort Liability Is Emerging Faster Than LegislationHistorically, tort law has repeatedly adapted to transformational technologies that introduced new forms of widespread risk.[4] Automobiles, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and mass-produced consumer products all forced courts to reconsider how liability should operate when technology causes foreseeable harm at scale.[5] AI may now represent the next chapter in that evolution.

One of the central legal battles emerging in AI litigation involves a deceptively simple question: Is AI a product or a service? Traditionally, software companies have argued that digital systems primarily involve speech, information, or services rather than tangible products subject to strict product liability principles.[6] Plaintiffs, however, are increasingly reframing AI systems as mass-marketed products whose design choices, safety features, warnings, and foreseeable risks should be evaluated under traditional product liability doctrines.[7]

How Product Liability Principles Apply to AI SystemsThat shift is significant because product liability law already contains mature legal frameworks for evaluating defective design, failure to warn, foreseeable misuse, safer alternative designs, and post market monitoring obligations.[8] Courts do not need entirely new legal doctrines to begin addressing AI-related harms. Existing tort principles are proving adaptable to the technology.

Why Courts Are Focusing on AI Design and Safety FeaturesRecent litigation reflects this evolution. Courts increasingly appear willing to move beyond all-or-nothing arguments about whether AI platforms are categorically products or services. Instead, judges are examining discrete software features and asking whether those features function similarly to physical safety mechanisms.[9] In litigation involving social media platforms, rideshare applications, chatbots, and digital platforms, courts have focused on issues such as parental controls, age gating, recommendation algorithms, friction-inducing prompts, escalation systems, and other safety-oriented design features.[10]

This feature-by-feature approach may become one of the defining legal frameworks for AI litigation. Rather than litigating whether a chatbot’s output itself constitutes protected speech, plaintiffs are increasingly targeting the architecture of the system: the guardrails, defaults, warnings, monitoring systems, interaction patterns, and safety interlocks that shape user behavior.[11] The legal focus is shifting from what did the AI say? to how was the system designed?

That distinction matters because courts are generally far more comfortable evaluating engineering choices and safety mechanisms than regulating abstract speech. Judges routinely oversee litigation involving defective designs, foreseeable risks, inadequate warnings, and safer alternative designs in countless other industries.[12] AI litigation increasingly resembles those familiar forms of product litigation.

The Role of Tort Litigation in AI GovernanceThe implications for AI governance are substantial. Tort litigation naturally incentivizes companies to document testing procedures, conduct risk assessments, monitor post deployment behavior, evaluate foreseeable misuse, and implement safety-by-design principles.[13] In product liability litigation, internal company records often become central evidence.[14] Decisions about warnings, safeguards, testing timelines, user monitoring, escalation protocols, and alternative safety measures may all become discoverable evidence in future lawsuits.[15]

This dynamic effectively creates a form of decentralized regulation through litigation pressure. Companies facing potential liability often alter practices long before legislatures finalize comprehensive regulatory schemes. Historically, product liability litigation influenced industries ranging from automotive manufacturing to pharmaceuticals, tobacco, and consumer electronics.[16] AI companies may increasingly face similar incentives.

The Pharmaceutical Model and AI Risk ManagementThe analogy to pharmaceuticals is particularly instructive. Drug manufacturers operate within a framework that combines ex ante regulatory review with ex post tort liability.[17] Even after approval, manufacturers continue monitoring products for emerging risks, updating warnings, and revising safety practices.[18] Some legal scholars now argue that AI systems may require comparable forms of ongoing post market surveillance and risk management.[19]

Importantly, tort litigation may also shape responsibility across the broader AI ecosystem. Emerging cases suggest plaintiffs will increasingly pursue claims not only against branded AI applications, but also against upstream foundation model developers, downstream deployers, enterprise integrators, and platform operators.[20] Courts may ultimately apply cheapest cost avoider reasoning, imposing responsibility on the parties best positioned to reduce foreseeable harm.

At the same time, legislative and regulatory developments are beginning to reinforce these concepts. The European Union’s revised Product Liability Directive treats software and AI systems as products for liability purposes.[21]California and other states are enacting AI-specific statutes focused on foreseeable risks, companion chatbots, and algorithmic safety.[22] Even where such laws do not directly govern a case, they may influence how courts evaluate foreseeability, reasonableness, and standard-of-care arguments.

Why Courts May Become the Primary Regulators of Artificial IntelligenceThe broader reality is becoming increasingly clear: AI governance may emerge through ordinary tort law faster than through comprehensive federal legislation. If that occurs, courts will occupy a central role in shaping the future boundaries of AI accountability. Judges will increasingly confront questions involving design defects, foreseeability, warnings, validation, human oversight, expert testimony, and algorithmic risk assessment.

Artificial intelligence is often described as a disruptive force for the legal system. Increasingly, however, the legal system itself may become one of the primary forces shaping artificial intelligence.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Brian W. MacKenzie and David Wallace, AI in the Criminal Courts: Balancing Innovation and Justice, 41 Crim. Just.(Spring 2026).

[2] Brian W. MacKenzie, AI Tort Liability: Does Negligence Law Still Apply?, Just. Speakers Inst. (2026).

[3] Id.

[4] Donald G. Gifford, Technological Triggers to Tort Revolutions, 95 N.C. L. Rev. 897 (2017).

[5] Id.

[6] Catherine M. Sharkey, Products Liability for Artificial Intelligence, Lawfare (Dec. 4, 2019).

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] Mark Geistfeld, Product Liability Law in the Age of AI (Aspen Publ’g 2025).

[10] Id

[11] Michael J. Lowell & Matthew J. O’Brien, AI Product Liability: The Next Wave of Litigation?, JDSupra (July 17, 2025).

[12] Geistfeld, supra note 9.

[13] Adam Thierer, Risk Perception, Tort Liability, and Emerging Technologies, Brookings Inst. (May 30, 2018).

[14] DLA Piper, Snapshot: Evidentiary Issues and Damages in Product Liability Litigation in USA, Lexology.

[15] Id,

[16] Alexandra D. Lahav, A Revisionist History of Products Liability, 122 Mich. L. Rev. 381 (2023).

[17] Sharkey supra note 6.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Marcin Szczepański, EU Artificial Intelligence Act: First Regulation on Artificial Intelligence (Eur. Parl. Rsch. Serv. 2023).

[22] Sharkey supra note 6.

The post AI Tort Liability: How Courts May Regulate Artificial Intelligence First * appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #95In this episode, Justice Speaks turns its focus to treatment courts, juvenile justice reform, and behavioral health initiatives within the American court system. The podcast features Chief Justice Loretta Rush of the Indiana Supreme Court, who reflects on her career as a juvenile court judge, her leadership in expanding problem-solving courts across Indiana, and her continuing work addressing substance use disorders, mental health, and child welfare issues through evidence-based judicial practices. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

From Juvenile Court Judge to Problem-Solving Court AdvocateChief Justice Loretta RushChief Justice Rush reflected on her early years as a civil litigator, where much of her work focused on pro bono representation for children and victims of domestic violence. That commitment to vulnerable populations ultimately shaped her transition to the bench, where she became a juvenile court judge and established one of Indiana’s earliest juvenile drug treatment courts. She described witnessing firsthand how untreated trauma, addiction, and mental health disorders repeatedly drew young people and families into the justice system. Rather than relying solely on punitive responses, she became an advocate for evidence-based interventions designed to stabilize families and improve long-term outcomes.

The Expansion of Problem-Solving Courts in IndianaThe conversation highlighted Indiana’s significant expansion of problem-solving courts during Chief Justice Rush’s tenure on the Supreme Court. Since becoming Chief Justice, the number of treatment and problem-solving courts in Indiana has quadrupled. These courts now address a wide range of issues, including substance use disorders, mental health challenges, veterans treatment, and family recovery needs. She emphasized that treatment courts are not simply alternatives to incarceration, but structured accountability systems that combine judicial oversight, treatment, supervision, and community support.

Chief Justice Rush discussed how the state moved away from a “tough on crime” philosophy toward a model grounded in research, rehabilitation, and behavioral health treatment. She explained that Indiana successfully closed two state juvenile correctional facilities while simultaneously reducing juvenile arrest rates, demonstrating that evidence-based practices can improve both public safety and outcomes for youth.

Family Recovery Courts and Early Childhood InterventionChief Justice Rush also discussed Indiana’s development of family recovery courts and safe baby courts. Indiana currently operates approximately 20 family recovery courts designed to support families affected by substance use disorders while reducing foster care placements and family separation. The safe baby court initiative focuses specifically on children ages zero to three involved in the child welfare system. These specialized courts coordinate with child welfare agencies, early childhood services, treatment providers, and programs such as Head Start to create comprehensive support systems for both parents and children during critical developmental years.

The discussion also examined the emotional and professional impact treatment courts can have on judges and court personnel. Chief Justice Rush noted that many judges who participate in treatment courts describe the experience as the most meaningful and rewarding work of their careers. The conversation also acknowledged the challenges associated with repeated exposure to trauma and emphasized the importance of supporting judicial wellness and resiliency.

The Future of Problem-Solving Courts and Artificial IntelligenceLooking toward the future, Chief Justice Rush identified several major challenges facing courts nationwide. Among the most significant is the continued need for sustainable funding for treatment programs and alternatives to incarceration. She also discussed the growing role of artificial intelligence within the justice system. While AI adoption among treatment court professionals remains relatively limited, Chief Justice Rush observed that algorithmic tools and risk assessment technologies are already influencing decision-making in many areas of the justice system. She stressed the importance of thoughtful oversight, transparency, and responsible implementation as courts continue navigating emerging technologies.

Chief Justice Rush also spoke about her leadership at the national level, including her work chairing behavioral health initiatives and national task forces addressing mental health and opioid-related challenges. Throughout the conversation, she emphasized a central principle that continues to guide her work: substance use disorder and mental illness must be treated as health conditions requiring evidence-based intervention, not moral failings deserving only punishment.

We at the Justice Speakers Institute thank Chief Justice Rush for sharing her insights and experiences on the podcast and thanks Reconnect for sponsoring this episode.

The post Problem-Solving Courts and Judicial Reform with Chief Justice Loretta Rush appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 7 and conclusion in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Discussions about AI governance in the courts have largely focused on the future potential of artificial intelligence, particularly how courts might use emerging technologies to improve efficiency and modernize operations.[1] As part of that effort, courts have increasingly explored AI-assisted legal research, automated transcription systems, scheduling tools, predictive analytics, risk assessments, and generative AI platforms capable of producing legal content in seconds.[2] However, as this series has demonstrated, artificial intelligence is no longer a future issue for the courts. AI systems are already embedded within judicial and legal processes.[3]

Why AI Governance in the Courts Can No Longer WaitThe challenge now is whether and how courts will establish meaningful governance before institutional dependence makes effective oversight increasingly difficult.

The current discussion surrounding artificial intelligence regulation assumes that courts must wait for Congress, state legislatures, or technology companies to establish the governing rules.[4] That assumption overlooks the reality that courts already possess substantial authority to regulate how AI is used within judicial systems.[5] Judges do not need to become technology specialists, build AI systems, or reinvent the legal framework in order to govern the use of artificial intelligence. They simply need to exercise the authority they already possess.

Courts have always governed courtroom procedures, evidentiary reliability, ethical obligations, records management, confidentiality standards, and professional conduct.[6] The emergence of artificial intelligence does not change these responsibilities. If anything, AI increases the need for active judicial oversight, transparency, and accountability.

AI Governance in the Courts Starts With DisclosureJudicial oversight starts with disclosure. If AI contributes to legal filings, judicial drafting, investigative reports, risk assessments, or evidentiary summaries, courts can require parties to disclose that use.[7] Disclosure does not prohibit innovation. It simply ensures transparency. A justice system cannot meaningfully evaluate reliability when the involvement of AI remains hidden.

Requiring disclosure is not new. Courts routinely require it in other contexts involving expert testimony, scientific evidence, financial interests, and procedural irregularities. AI should not receive special exemption from transparency merely because it operates through software rather than through human actors.

AI-Generated Content Cannot Be Self-AuthenticatingDisclosure is a precondition for verification. Artificial intelligence systems are capable of producing convincing but inaccurate outputs.[8] Large language models can fabricate citations, misstate legal standards, summarize evidence incorrectly, or omit critical contextual information.[9] Even highly accurate systems used in risk assessments may produce unreliable results under particular circumstances.[10] The danger is not merely that AI can make mistakes; the greater danger is that users may stop independently verifying information because the technology appears authoritative. Therefore, courts must follow a basic principle: AI-generated content is never self-authenticating.

Human Accountability Remains Essential in AI GovernanceLawyers are responsible for the accuracy of their filings. Prosecutors bear the same responsibility for disclosures and constitutional obligations. Judges are responsible for rulings issued in their names. Probation officers, treatment providers, and law enforcement officials are accountable for the information they present to courts. Responsibility does not transfer from people to software.

Procurement governance is another area in which courts possess substantial authority. However, many judicial systems are acquiring AI-enabled tools through routine administrative purchasing decisions without fully evaluating long-term reliability, data security risks, bias concerns, or constitutional implications.[11] That approach poses significant risks to the integrity of the justice system.

Therefore, courts should require procurement standards for AI systems that include transparency regarding training data, known limitations, validation testing, cybersecurity protections, audit access, and vendor accountability.[12] No contract should prevent meaningful review.[13] Nor should courts allow proprietary protections to shield systems from scrutiny when liberty interests may be affected.[14] If a tool may influence legal outcomes, courts must retain the ability to question how it functions.

Why AI Systems in the Courts Require Ongoing AuditingAudit mechanisms are also critical. AI governance cannot operate as a one-time approval process.[15] Systems evolve, vendors modify their products, and error rates shift over time.[16] A tool that performs adequately today may produce unacceptable outcomes tomorrow.

For that reason, courts should implement periodic review requirements and independent auditing procedures for AI systems used in judicial operations. Courts should also establish sunset provisions requiring periodic reauthorization of AI tools rather than permitting indefinite institutional reliance once a system becomes embedded.

Sunset mechanisms matter because technological dependence develops quietly. Once workflows, staffing structures, and institutional habits adapt around AI systems, removing them becomes difficult regardless of whether they continue to function responsibly.[17] Governance delayed too long becomes governance surrendered.

The most important safeguard is judicial leadership itself.

Procedural Fairness and AI Governance in the Justice SystemThe judiciary has historically served as one of the central institutional guardians of procedural fairness, transparency, accountability, and constitutional restraint. Those responsibilities do not diminish merely because decision-support systems become more sophisticated. Courts must resist the temptation to treat AI governance as purely a technical problem best left to vendors, consultants, or information technology departments.

AI Governance in the Courts Requires Institutional LeadershipThe central challenge is not whether judges can understand machine learning architecture. The real challenge is whether judicial institutions remain willing to insist upon transparency, accountability, human responsibility, and procedural fairness even when technology promises greater speed and efficiency.

Courts do not need new constitutional amendments to begin this work. Judges do not need to become software experts. They need to govern.

* This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar and editing support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Brian MacKenzie, AI, Evidence, Due Process, and the Black Box Problem, Justice Speakers Institute (May 5, 2026).

[2] Brian MacKenzie, AI Governance in the Justice System: Hardwiring Justice, Justice Speakers Institute (Apr. 14, 2026).

[3] Id.

[4] Brian MacKenzie, AI Describes Many Technologies and None of Them Are Intelligent, Justice Speakers Institute (Feb. 3, 2026)..

[5] MacKenzie, supra note 1.

[6] Id.

[7] Brian MacKenzie, When AI Writes the Law: The Risks and Limits of AI-Generated Legal Writing, Justice Speakers Institute (May 12, 2026).

[8] Id.

[9] Brian MacKenzie, AI Describes Many Technologies and None of Them Are Intelligent, Justice Speakers Institute (Feb. 3, 2026).

[10] Id.

[11] Brian MacKenzie, Hardwiring Justice: AI in Court Administration and Judicial Decision-Making, Justice Speakers Institute (Feb. 10, 2026).

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Brian MacKenzie, AI in the Courts: Guardrails and What Judges Must Know, Justice Speakers Institute (Apr. 16, 2026).

The post Hardwiring Justice: AI Governance in the Courts appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 6 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

AI Generated Legal Writing Is Expanding RapidlyAs this series has explained, artificial intelligence (AI) has entering the justice system through many doors, but the most visible is perhaps the rapid adoption of large language models (LLMs).[1] Judges, lawyers, court staff, and law enforcement agencies are experimenting with systems capable of drafting briefs, summarizing records, generating memos, and even producing proposed judicial orders.[2] The appeal is obvious: LLMs can process enormous volumes of text and generate readable prose in seconds.[3] For courts facing overwhelming caseloads and resource constraints, the efficiency gains are real and worth taking seriously.

Understanding what these systems actually do, however, is essential to using them well. Large language models are not reasoning engines.[4] They are language engines.[5] Their function is to generate text based on statistical patterns learned from massive collections of written material.[6] They do not understand facts, weigh evidence, apply legal standards, or exercise judgment.[7] They predict the next word in a sequence based on statistical probability.[8] Practitioners who understand that distinction are better positioned to deploy these tools effectively mand to catch problems before they reach a filing or an opinion.

The Risk of Evidentiary LaunderingOne risk worth knowing by name is evidentiary laundering.[9] LLMs can rephrase complex technical or scientific information in ways that strip away the uncertainty embedded in the original material.[10]Error rates, confidence intervals, methodological limitations, and probabilistic reasoning can disappear during summarization.[11] What begins as cautious analysis may emerge as confident declarative prose. Evidence law is built around the careful evaluation of reliability, methodology, and limitations. Lawyers and judges who understand this dynamic can build verification habits that catch the problem before it affects how evidence is weighed.

AI Errors in Judicial OpinionsRecent incidents illustrate what happens when those habits are absent. In July 2025, federal courts in New Jersey and Mississippi withdrew published rulings after lawyers discovered errors traceable to unvetted AI research.[12] In case of In re CorMedix Inc. Securities Litigation, the opinion cited authorities for propositions they did not support, misstated case outcomes, and attributed statements to defendants that were never alleged.[13] Counsel flagged the errors in a letter to the court; the judge withdrew the opinion and its accompanying order within twenty-four hours.[14]

The Mississippi case unfolded the same week.[15] Both courts responded by adopting internal policies requiring that any AI-assisted research or drafting be independently verified before appearing in an opinion, a straightforward safeguard that practitioners across the system would do well to adopt.

Sanctions against attorneys who filed AI-generated submissions without verifying citations have followed in multiple jurisdictions, and courts have begun treating unverified AI use as a distinct category of professional misconduct. The practical lesson is clear: AI-assisted drafting requires a verification step that is at least as rigorous as the drafting itself. The underlying stakes go beyond individual liability. The legal system depends on confidence in the reliability of sources, precedents, and legal reasoning. Practitioners who build verification into their AI workflows protect not only their clients but the credibility of the system they work in.

Judicial Policies on AI UseThe judicial context raises additional considerations. When chambers staff rely on AI-generated summaries or legal analysis without careful review, errors can migrate into orders and opinions that carry the authority of the court. Because judicial writing shapes precedent, even small inaccuracies can propagate. Courts that have moved earliest to establish clear internal AI policies, defining permissible uses, requiring verification, and assigning responsibility for review, are best positioned to capture the efficiency benefits while managing the risks.

AI Cannot Replace Legal JudgmentUsed with clear eyes, LLMs offer genuine value: faster document review, quicker synthesis of large records, reduced time on routine administrative drafting. The goal is not to avoid these tools but to use them in ways that match their actual capabilities. Large language models generate language.[16] They do not evaluate truth, measure scientific reliability, or apply evidentiary standards. Workflows built on that understanding tend to work. Workflows that treat LLM output as a substitute for legal judgment tend not to.

The justice system depends on more than well-written text. It depends on reasoning, accountability, and transparency about how decisions are made. LLM’s cannot be allowed to decide. Keeping that boundary clear is what allows the efficiency these tools offer to serve justice rather than quietly undermine it.

* This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar and editing support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Adam Allen Bent, Large Language Models: AI’s Legal Revolution, 44 Pace L. Rev. (2023).

[2] Id.

[3] Id.

[4][4] Gary Marcus, BREAKING: LLM “Reasoning” Continues to Be Deeply Flawed, The Road to AI We Can Trust (Feb. 10, 2026).

[5] Id.

[6] Eljas Linna & Tuula Linna, Judicial Requirements for Generative AI in Legal Reasoning (Aug. 2025).

[7] Parshin Shojaee, Iman Mirzadeh, Keivan Alizadeh, Maxwell Horton, Samy Bengio & Mehrdad Farajtabar, The Illusion of Thinking: Understanding the Strengths and Limitations of Reasoning Models via the Lens of Problem Complexity (June 2025).

[8] Id.

[9] Mohammad Beigi, Sijia Wang, Ying Shen, Zihao Lin, Adithya Kulkarni, Jianfeng He, Feng Chen, Ming Jin, Jin-Hee Cho, Dawei Zhou, Chang-Tien Lu & Lifu Huang, Rethinking the Uncertainty: A Critical Review and Analysis in the Era of Large Language Models (Oct. 26, 2024).

[10] Id.

[11]Id.

[12] How AI Misled Two US Courts and the Urgent Case for AI Rules in Judging, THE AI FORUM (Aug. 28, 2025).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] AI Demystified: Introduction to Large Language Models: LLMs for the Non-Technical (AI Simplified Series), Stanford University University Information Technology (last modified Dec. 13, 2024), https://uit.stanford.edu/service/techtraining/ai-demystified/llm.

The post When AI Writes the Law: The Risks and Limits of Large Language Models in the Justice System appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 5 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are now embedded across nearly every phase of criminal proceedings, from investigative analytics and risk assessment to case management and predictive analysis.[1] As these systems become more integrated, a familiar concern emerges: opacity, often called the “black box” problem. [2] Judges, lawyers, and justice professionals worry that algorithmic systems produce results that cannot be fully understood or challenged. [3] That concern is legitimate, but it is frequently misdirected. The real issue is not simply whether these systems can be explained, but whether defendants have a meaningful opportunity to contest them.

What Procedural Justice Actually RequiresProcedural justice[4] is not a synonym for accuracy. It is a distinct set of requirements about how legal processes must treat the people subject to them.[5] Research in this field is consistent across decades and jurisdictions: people evaluate the legitimacy of legal outcomes primarily through process, not result.[6] They ask whether the process treated them with dignity, whether their voice was heard, whether the rules were applied consistently, and whether the decision-maker was accountable.[7] A correct outcome reached through an unfair process does not satisfy these requirements.[8]Neither does an accurate algorithm deployed without meaningful opportunity to challenge it.

This matters for AI evidence because the two inquiries can diverge sharply. A facial recognition system might produce a statistically defensible identification rate[9] and still be used in a way that denies a defendant any meaningful opportunity to examine how it was trained, how it performs across demographic groups, or whether it was deployed within its validated scope. At the point of that denial, the process fails on procedural justice grounds regardless of whether the underlying output was correct. Accuracy and fairness are not the same inquiry.

Perceived legitimacy has practical consequences that extend beyond individual cases.[10] Compliance, cooperation with law enforcement, and the social foundations of institutional authority all depend on whether people believe the system treats them fairly.[11] Communities that already are skeptical about the criminal justice system are particularly sensitive to processes that substitute machine authority for accountable human judgment.

How Opacity Defeats Fair ProcessThe adversarial process is the mechanism through which due process is operationalized in American criminal proceedings.[12] Evidence is tested. Witnesses are cross-examined. Expert conclusions are subject to challenge. When an algorithmic tool enters a case shielded by trade secret protections, that mechanism breaks down.

A defendant who cannot learn how a system works, what its known failure modes are, or whether it has been independently validated cannot mount a meaningful challenge. The adversarial process has not been satisfied. It has been bypassed. Part of what makes this persistent is that courts and justice agencies have rarely defined what disclosure is actually required when these systems influence legal decisions. In the absence of that definition, vendors protect as much as possible and agencies accept whatever is offered. The opacity is not inevitable. It is the predictable result of an institutional failure to set terms.

AI outputs do not arrive neutrally. A facial recognition match carries an implicit claim to objectivity that is difficult for jurors and judges to critically interrogate without access to performance data.[13] The trade secret claim for a risk assessment is therefore not simply an IP protection[14]. In the criminal context, it functions as a structural barrier to the kind of contestation that procedural justice requires.

The doctrinal consequences of opacity run deeper than procedural unfairness. Scholars examining AI through the lens of civil and criminal liability have concluded that black-box systems defeat the foundational legal tests courts depend on to assign responsibility, intent, foreseeability, causation, because the reasoning behind algorithmic outputs cannot be reconstructed even by the systems’ own developers.[15] When legal doctrine cannot reach a tool, governance must.

The Accountability Gap Is Two-SidedVendor opacity is the more visible dimension of the governance failure, but it is not the only one. The second is judicial AI literacy, and the absence of it is just as consequential. Procedural justice requires not only that defendants have access to relevant information but that the decision-maker can meaningfully evaluate it. A judge who cannot assess the reliability, demographic performance, or operational limits of an algorithmic tool is not exercising the kind of informed, accountable judgment that fair process demands.

Research examining how algorithmic recommendations interact with human judgment finds that when the two appear together, the algorithm shapes the outcome in the substantial majority of cases, even where the judge formally retains decision-making authority.[16] That is not deference in any meaningful sense. It is delegation without accountability, the formal structure of human judgment without its substance. Addressing vendor opacity while leaving judicial competency unreformed solves only half the problem. The governance failure is institutional on both sides.

What Defendants Are OwedFraming disclosure obligations around what procedural fairness requires, rather than what vendors are prepared to offer, changes both the scope and focus of the inquiry. Source code is the wrong target. It describes how a system was built. It does not reveal how the system performs in practice, across what populations, and within what limits. Four categories of information are what procedural justice actually demands.

Independent validation. A defendant has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the tool was tested by someone other than its developer, on a population comparable to theirs, under conditions comparable to those in which it was used. Validation data is not a technical nicety. It is what transforms an algorithmic claim into evidence that can be evaluated.

Disaggregated error rates. Aggregate accuracy figures are not sufficient. A system that performs well on average may fail disproportionately for specific demographic groups. Procedural fairness requires that a defendant be able to assess whether a tool’s error profile is relevant to their case specifically, not merely adequate in the aggregate.

Operational scope and actual deployment. Under what conditions was the system designed to operate, and were those conditions present in this case? The gap between validated scope and actual deployment is among the most significant fairness risks in algorithmic evidence. A defendant is entitled to know whether the tool was used as designed.

Human accountability. Who reviewed the output before it influenced the investigation or prosecution, and what qualified them to do so? Procedural justice is not satisfied by a system that generates a result. It requires that an accountable human being stood behind the decision to act on it, someone who can be questioned, challenged, and held responsible.

When “Explainability” Is Not EnoughThe AI industry has developed a fluent vocabulary of transparency.[17] Systems are marketed as interpretable, explainable, and auditable.[18] In a governance context these claims require scrutiny, because they describe two distinct things that are frequently conflated.

Explainability as a product feature produces documentation designed for comprehensibility, not accountability.[19] A visualization showing which pixels influenced a facial recognition match is built to make a user feel confident in the output.[20] It is not built to help a defense attorney identify the demographic conditions under which the system fails, or to help a judge assess whether performance characteristics are adequate to the evidentiary weight being placed on the result.[21]

Explainability as a procedural justice obligation is something different: the ability of affected parties to obtain the information they need to contest a decision.[22] That standard is not met by vendor-generated documentation, however well-designed. It is met by independent validation, disclosed error rates, and accountable human review. Courts that treat the former as a substitute for the latter have not resolved the transparency problem. They have formalized the conditions under which it persists.

Governance as a Trust ObligationWhat follows from taking procedural justice seriously as the organizing principle is that governance of AI evidence is not primarily a technical project. It is an institutional one. The question is not whether these systems can be made more transparent in some engineering sense. It is whether legal institutions will define and enforce the conditions under which algorithmic tools may influence the liberty of people who appear before them.

Communities with the deepest exposure to algorithmic surveillance in law enforcement are also those with the strongest reasons to distrust institutions that deploy these tools without accountability.[23] When algorithmic outputs are difficult to challenge and easy to present as objective, they do not merely produce individual injustices. They accelerate the erosion of institutional legitimacy in precisely the communities where that legitimacy is most consequential and most fragile.

The question is not unprecedented. Algorithmic and computational tools already operate under structured oversight regimes in medicine, aviation, and financial regulation, fields where the consequences of unreliable outputs are similarly serious. Those regimes define testing requirements, performance standards, error rate disclosures, and limits of use. They do not require revealing proprietary source code. They require the information necessary to evaluate whether a tool is doing what it claims to do, in the conditions where it is being used. Courts face the same task. The difference is that they have not yet done it.

The governance mechanisms addressed this series, ethics, expert protocols, admissibility, professional accountability frameworks, each serve an evidentiary function. But each also serves a procedural justice function more fundamental than the evidentiary one. Getting this right is not only about keeping unreliable evidence out of court. It is about whether the institutions that deploy these tools can claim to be administering justice.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Clayton Vickers, How AI Risks Creating a ‘Black Box’ at the Heart of US Legal System, The Hill (Apr. 7, 2024, 6:00 AM ET), https://thehill.com/business/personal-finance/4571982-ai-black-box-legal-system/.

[2] Id.

[3] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Justice: Final Report (Dec. 3, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/olp/media/1381796/dl?inline.

[4] Also call procedural fairness

[5] Kevin Burke & Steve Leben, Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction, Am. Judges Ass’n White Paper (2007).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] El Fadel N. Facial Recognition Algorithms: A Systematic Literature Review. J Imaging. 2025 Feb 13;11(2):58. doi: 10.3390/jimaging11020058. PMID: 39997560; PMCID: PMC11856072.

[10] Burke & Leben, supra note 5.

[11] Id.

[12] Lucia Zedner & Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, Due Process, in TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (Kai Ambos et al. eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2019).

[13] Michael Christopher Naughton, Considering Face Value: The Complex Legal Implications of Facial Recognition Technology, Crim. Just., Winter 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/magazine/2025-winter/face-value-complex-legal-implications-facial-recognition-tech/.

[14] Lena Chan, Note, The Weaponization of Trade Secret Law, 124 Colum. L. Rev. 859 (2024).

[15] Yavar Bathaee, The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation, 31 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 889 (2018).

[16] Reuben Binns, Human Judgment in Algorithmic Loops: Individual Justice and Automated Decision-Making, 16 Reg. & Governance 197 (2022).

[17] Nagadivya Balasubramaniam, Marjo Kauppinen, Antti Rannisto, Kari Hiekkanen & Sari Kujala, Transparency and Explainability of AI Systems: From Ethical Guidelines to Requirements, 159 Info. & Software Tech. 107197 (2023).

[18] Id.

[19] Christian Kästner, Explainability, in Machine Learning in Production: From Models to Products, ch. 25 (2024), https://mlip-cmu.github.io/book/25-explainability.html.

[20] Id.

[21] Karen McGregor Richmond, Satya M. Muddamsetty, Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Henrik Palmer Olsen & Thomas B. Moeslund, Explainable AI and Law: An Evidential Survey, 3 Digital Soc’y 1 (2024).

[22] L. Metikoš & I. van Domselaar, Procedural Justice and Judicial AI: Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation (May 5, 2025) (unpublished manuscript), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5242905.

[23] Rachel Levinson-Waldman & Ivey Dyson, The Dangers of Unregulated AI in Policing, Brennan Ctr. for Just. (Nov. 20, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dangers-unregulated-ai-policing.

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 5 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are now embedded across nearly every phase of criminal proceedings, from investigative analytics and risk assessment to case management and predictive analysis.[1] As these systems become more integrated, a familiar concern emerges: opacity, often called the “black box” problem. [2] Judges, lawyers, and justice professionals worry that algorithmic systems produce results that cannot be fully understood or challenged. [3] That concern is legitimate, but it is frequently misdirected. The real issue is not simply whether these systems can be explained, but whether defendants have a meaningful opportunity to contest them.

What Procedural Justice Actually RequiresProcedural justice[4] is not a synonym for accuracy. It is a distinct set of requirements about how legal processes must treat the people subject to them.[5] Research in this field is consistent across decades and jurisdictions: people evaluate the legitimacy of legal outcomes primarily through process, not result.[6] They ask whether the process treated them with dignity, whether their voice was heard, whether the rules were applied consistently, and whether the decision-maker was accountable.[7] A correct outcome reached through an unfair process does not satisfy these requirements.[8]Neither does an accurate algorithm deployed without meaningful opportunity to challenge it.

This matters for AI evidence because the two inquiries can diverge sharply. A facial recognition system might produce a statistically defensible identification rate[9] and still be used in a way that denies a defendant any meaningful opportunity to examine how it was trained, how it performs across demographic groups, or whether it was deployed within its validated scope. At the point of that denial, the process fails on procedural justice grounds regardless of whether the underlying output was correct. Accuracy and fairness are not the same inquiry.

Perceived legitimacy has practical consequences that extend beyond individual cases.[10] Compliance, cooperation with law enforcement, and the social foundations of institutional authority all depend on whether people believe the system treats them fairly.[11] Communities that already are skeptical about the criminal justice system are particularly sensitive to processes that substitute machine authority for accountable human judgment.

How Opacity Defeats Fair ProcessThe adversarial process is the mechanism through which due process is operationalized in American criminal proceedings.[12] Evidence is tested. Witnesses are cross-examined. Expert conclusions are subject to challenge. When an algorithmic tool enters a case shielded by trade secret protections, that mechanism breaks down.

A defendant who cannot learn how a system works, what its known failure modes are, or whether it has been independently validated cannot mount a meaningful challenge. The adversarial process has not been satisfied. It has been bypassed. Part of what makes this persistent is that courts and justice agencies have rarely defined what disclosure is actually required when these systems influence legal decisions. In the absence of that definition, vendors protect as much as possible and agencies accept whatever is offered. The opacity is not inevitable. It is the predictable result of an institutional failure to set terms.

AI outputs do not arrive neutrally. A facial recognition match carries an implicit claim to objectivity that is difficult for jurors and judges to critically interrogate without access to performance data.[13] The trade secret claim for a risk assessment is therefore not simply an IP protection[14]. In the criminal context, it functions as a structural barrier to the kind of contestation that procedural justice requires.

The doctrinal consequences of opacity run deeper than procedural unfairness. Scholars examining AI through the lens of civil and criminal liability have concluded that black-box systems defeat the foundational legal tests courts depend on to assign responsibility, intent, foreseeability, causation, because the reasoning behind algorithmic outputs cannot be reconstructed even by the systems’ own developers.[15] When legal doctrine cannot reach a tool, governance must.

The Accountability Gap Is Two-SidedVendor opacity is the more visible dimension of the governance failure, but it is not the only one. The second is judicial AI literacy, and the absence of it is just as consequential. Procedural justice requires not only that defendants have access to relevant information but that the decision-maker can meaningfully evaluate it. A judge who cannot assess the reliability, demographic performance, or operational limits of an algorithmic tool is not exercising the kind of informed, accountable judgment that fair process demands.

Research examining how algorithmic recommendations interact with human judgment finds that when the two appear together, the algorithm shapes the outcome in the substantial majority of cases, even where the judge formally retains decision-making authority.[16] That is not deference in any meaningful sense. It is delegation without accountability, the formal structure of human judgment without its substance. Addressing vendor opacity while leaving judicial competency unreformed solves only half the problem. The governance failure is institutional on both sides.

What Defendants Are OwedFraming disclosure obligations around what procedural fairness requires, rather than what vendors are prepared to offer, changes both the scope and focus of the inquiry. Source code is the wrong target. It describes how a system was built. It does not reveal how the system performs in practice, across what populations, and within what limits. Four categories of information are what procedural justice actually demands.

Independent validation. A defendant has a legitimate interest in knowing whether the tool was tested by someone other than its developer, on a population comparable to theirs, under conditions comparable to those in which it was used. Validation data is not a technical nicety. It is what transforms an algorithmic claim into evidence that can be evaluated.

Disaggregated error rates. Aggregate accuracy figures are not sufficient. A system that performs well on average may fail disproportionately for specific demographic groups. Procedural fairness requires that a defendant be able to assess whether a tool’s error profile is relevant to their case specifically, not merely adequate in the aggregate.

Operational scope and actual deployment. Under what conditions was the system designed to operate, and were those conditions present in this case? The gap between validated scope and actual deployment is among the most significant fairness risks in algorithmic evidence. A defendant is entitled to know whether the tool was used as designed.

Human accountability. Who reviewed the output before it influenced the investigation or prosecution, and what qualified them to do so? Procedural justice is not satisfied by a system that generates a result. It requires that an accountable human being stood behind the decision to act on it, someone who can be questioned, challenged, and held responsible.

When “Explainability” Is Not EnoughThe AI industry has developed a fluent vocabulary of transparency.[17] Systems are marketed as interpretable, explainable, and auditable.[18] In a governance context these claims require scrutiny, because they describe two distinct things that are frequently conflated.

Explain ability as a product feature produces documentation designed for comprehensibility, not accountability.[19] A visualization showing which pixels influenced a facial recognition match is built to make a user feel confident in the output.[20] It is not built to help a defense attorney identify the demographic conditions under which the system fails, or to help a judge assess whether performance characteristics are adequate to the evidentiary weight being placed on the result.[21]

Explain ability as a procedural justice obligation is something different: the ability of affected parties to obtain the information they need to contest a decision.[22] That standard is not met by vendor-generated documentation, however well-designed. It is met by independent validation, disclosed error rates, and accountable human review. Courts that treat the former as a substitute for the latter have not resolved the transparency problem. They have formalized the conditions under which it persists.

Governance as a Trust ObligationWhat follows from taking procedural justice seriously as the organizing principle is that governance of AI evidence is not primarily a technical project. It is an institutional one. The question is not whether these systems can be made more transparent in some engineering sense. It is whether legal institutions will define and enforce the conditions under which algorithmic tools may influence the liberty of people who appear before them.

Communities with the deepest exposure to algorithmic surveillance in law enforcement are also those with the strongest reasons to distrust institutions that deploy these tools without

accountability.[23] When algorithmic outputs are difficult to challenge and easy to present as objective, they do not merely produce individual injustices. They accelerate the erosion of institutional legitimacy in precisely the communities where that legitimacy is most consequential and most fragile.

The question is not unprecedented. Algorithmic and computational tools already operate under structured oversight regimes in medicine, aviation, and financial regulation, fields where the consequences of unreliable outputs are similarly serious. Those regimes define testing requirements, performance standards, error rate disclosures, and limits of use. They do not require revealing proprietary source code. They require the information necessary to evaluate whether a tool is doing what it claims to do, in the conditions where it is being used. Courts face the same task. The difference is that they have not yet done it.

The governance mechanisms addressed this series, ethics, expert protocols, admissibility, professional accountability frameworks, each serve an evidentiary function. But each also serves a procedural justice function more fundamental than the evidentiary one. Getting this right is not only about keeping unreliable evidence out of court. It is about whether the institutions that deploy these tools can claim to be administering justice.

[1] Clayton Vickers, How AI Risks Creating a ‘Black Box’ at the Heart of US Legal System, The Hill (Apr. 7, 2024, 6:00 AM ET), https://thehill.com/business/personal-finance/4571982-ai-black-box-legal-system/.

[2] Id.

[3] U.S. Dep’t of Justice, Artificial Intelligence and Criminal Justice: Final Report (Dec. 3, 2024), https://www.justice.gov/olp/media/1381796/dl?inline.

[4] Also call procedural fairness

[5] Kevin Burke & Steve Leben, Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction, Am. Judges Ass’n White Paper (2007).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

[9] El Fadel N. Facial Recognition Algorithms: A Systematic Literature Review. J Imaging. 2025 Feb 13;11(2):58. doi: 10.3390/jimaging11020058. PMID: 39997560; PMCID: PMC11856072.

[10] Burke & Leben, supra note 5.

[11] Id.

[12] Lucia Zedner & Carl-Friedrich Stuckenberg, Due Process, in TREATISE ON INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL LAW (Kai Ambos et al. eds., Cambridge Univ. Press 2019).

[13] Michael Christopher Naughton, Considering Face Value: The Complex Legal Implications of Facial Recognition Technology, Crim. Just., Winter 2025, https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/resources/magazine/2025-winter/face-value-complex-legal-implications-facial-recognition-tech/.

[14] Lena Chan, Note, The Weaponization of Trade Secret Law, 124 Colum. L. Rev. 859 (2024).

[15] Yavar Bathaee, The Artificial Intelligence Black Box and the Failure of Intent and Causation, 31 Harv. J.L. & Tech. 889 (2018).

[16] Reuben Binns, Human Judgment in Algorithmic Loops: Individual Justice and Automated Decision-Making, 16 Reg. & Governance 197 (2022).

[17] Nagadivya Balasubramaniam, Marjo Kauppinen, Antti Rannisto, Kari Hiekkanen & Sari Kujala, Transparency and Explainability of AI Systems: From Ethical Guidelines to Requirements, 159 Info. & Software Tech. 107197 (2023).

[18] Id.

[19] Christian Kästner, Explainability, in Machine Learning in Production: From Models to Products, ch. 25 (2024), https://mlip-cmu.github.io/book/25-explainability.html.

[20] Id.

[21] Karen McGregor Richmond, Satya M. Muddamsetty, Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen, Henrik Palmer Olsen & Thomas B. Moeslund, Explainable AI and Law: An Evidential Survey, 3 Digital Soc’y 1 (2024).

[22] L. Metikoš & I. van Domselaar, Procedural Justice and Judicial AI: Substantiating Explainability Rights with the Values of Contestation (May 5, 2025) (unpublished manuscript), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5242905.

[23] Rachel Levinson-Waldman & Ivey Dyson, The Dangers of Unregulated AI in Policing, Brennan Ctr. for Just. (Nov. 20, 2025), https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/dangers-unregulated-ai-policing.

The post AI Evidence and Due Process: The Real Black Box Problem appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Why AI in the Courts Requires Immediate GovernanceArtificial intelligence (AI) is no longer experimental in courts. It is already shaping how evidence is gathered, disclosed, and presented. The question is no longer whether these tools will be used, but how they will be governed. It generates risk scores that follow defendants from bail through sentencing. It monitors individuals on probation in real time. It influences what judges see and how issues are framed before judicial review begins.

The question of whether AI will be used in the courtroom has already been answered in practice. The question now is whether courts will govern it deliberately, transparently, and in a manner consistent with the rule of law.

“Without guardrails, the very efficiencies that make AI attractive risk undermining fairness, accountability, and public trust.”

The Justice Speakers Institute series AI in the Courts offers a practical framework for doing exactly that. Reinforced by a recently published article in the ABA’s Criminal Justice journal by Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) and David Wallace, the framework centers on five principles drawn from constitutional doctrine and existing legal standards: the Five Guardrails. Together, they provide courts with a structure to harness the benefits of AI while preserving the values that define judicial legitimacy.

Guardrail One: Transparency and ExplainabilityNo judge should rely on an algorithm that cannot be understood or explained. This does not require mastery of machine learning. It requires clear documentation of how inputs produce outputs, how variables influence results, the origin of training data, and the system’s known limitations.

Transparency is not a procedural formality. It is a foundation of trust. Judicial legitimacy depends not only on outcomes but on the ability to explain how those outcomes were reached. When AI-generated summaries or recommendations are incorporated into judicial analysis, courts must be able to articulate how those materials were evaluated and what weight they were given. A decision that cannot be explained cannot be meaningfully appealed, challenged, or trusted.

Opacity undermines adversarial testing. In State v. Loomis, the Wisconsin Supreme Court warned that proprietary algorithms may limit a defendant’s ability to challenge sentencing evidence. When code cannot be reviewed and training data cannot be examined, the right to cross-examination becomes largely theoretical. Explainability is not simply good practice. It is a constitutional requirement.

Guardrail Two: Independent Validation and Peer ReviewAI tools must undergo rigorous independent validation before courts rely on them. Vendor assurances are not validation. Widespread adoption is not validation. Proper validation requires testing on representative datasets, documenting accuracy and error rates across demographic groups, assessing disparate impact, and making findings available to the defense.

Under Daubert and the 2023 amendments to Federal Rule of Evidence 702, these are threshold determinations, not matters of weight left to the jury. Has the model been tested on representative data? Has it been independently peer-reviewed? Are error rates documented and disclosed? Are there governing standards for its operation? These questions must be asked even when the judge does not understand the underlying programming.

“Without meaningful validation, AI is not evidence. It is conjecture.”

The risks are not theoretical. A widely cited ProPublica analysis found that a commonly used risk assessment tool mislabeled Black defendants as high risk at nearly twice the rate of white defendants. A tool that overlays scientific language on biased outcomes does not reduce injustice. It obscures it.

Guardrail Three: Human Oversight and AccountabilityAI must remain advisory. Human decision-makers must remain accountable. Judicial responsibility is personal and cannot be delegated to software, vendors, or institutional processes. This applies to sentencing, bail, custody determinations, and civil adjudication.

One of the most significant risks is automation bias—the tendency to favor machine-generated outputs over independent analysis. This does not require blind reliance. It develops gradually as repeated exposure to AI recommendations normalizes deference. Over time, this can narrow judicial inquiry and reduce critical engagement with the facts.

Judges must guard against this tendency. AI may assist with research, summarization, and case management. It cannot assess credibility, evaluate remorse, or weigh the human consequences of a ruling. Courts that treat algorithmic outputs as conclusions rather than inputs are not becoming more efficient. They are becoming less judicial.

Guardrail Four: Ethical Procurement and Vendor TransparencyCourts cannot rely on tools whose creators refuse transparency. Intellectual property interests do not override a defendant’s right to due process or a court’s obligation to ensure fairness. Procurement contracts must require disclosure of training data sources, documentation of bias-mitigation strategies, access to technical materials for defense review, audit rights, and disclosure of ownership interests that could affect neutrality.

Idaho’s 2019 transparency statute provides a strong model. It prevents vendors from invoking trade-secret protections when their tools are used in liberty decisions. Every state should follow it.

When a system cannot be disclosed because it is proprietary, it should not be used to determine whether someone loses their liberty. Transparency is not a vendor concession. It is a precondition of use.

Guardrail Five: Continuous Review and Corrective FeedbackAI systems are not static. Models change. Data evolves. Vendors update systems, sometimes without notice. A system that performs adequately at adoption may perform very differently after modification.

AI governance is not a one-time decision. It is an ongoing responsibility. Courts must build continuous review into their structures: ongoing accuracy testing, routine audits for demographic bias, monitoring of error rates, and evaluation of real-world outcomes against the tool’s predictions. Vendors must be required to disclose any material changes that affect system performance. And courts should adopt AI only to address clearly defined problems, because a system introduced without a specific objective is one that cannot be meaningfully reviewed.

If a system begins to produce unreliable or inequitable results, it must be corrected, suspended, or withdrawn. Courts that fail to build these mechanisms are not governing AI. They are deferring to it.

AI Governance Is a Judicial ResponsibilityThe Five Guardrails are not a rejection of AI. They call for governance grounded in constitutional obligations and judicial responsibility.

The standards for AI in the justice system will be set by decisions made now, before the technology is more deeply embedded and the precedents harder to revisit. Courts that act deliberately will preserve public confidence and shape how this technology serves justice. Courts that defer will find those decisions made for them.

“The question is no longer whether AI will change the courts. It already has. The question is whether courts will shape that change, or allow it to shape them.”

AI can strengthen justice only when it is bounded by transparency, accountability, and human judgment.

ResourcesAI in the Courts: Governance, Ethics, Evidence, and Judicial Responsibility Justice Speakers Institute, 2026 Edition

AI in the Criminal Courts: Balancing Innovation and Justice, Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) and David Wallace, Criminal Justice (ABA), Spring 2026

www.JusticeSpeakersInstitute.com / Justice & AI

The post Five Guardrails Every Court Needs for AI appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 4 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Applying the Standards to AI Evidence Categories Artificial intelligence (AI) now generates evidence and outputs that directly influence judicial outcomes. Questions of AI evidence admissibility are therefore becoming central to modern litigation. Risk scores inform detention decisions. [1]Facial recognition matches appear in charging documents. [2] Automated transcripts stand in for recordings that juries never hear.[3] Algorithmic flags trigger supervision violations.[4]

These outputs do not escape evidentiary law because they carry a technology label. When an AI-generated result is used to prove a fact or influence an adjudication, it is evidence, and the standards governing its admissibility are not new. Frye,[5] Daubert,[6] Federal Rule of Evidence (FRE) 702[7], and their state analogs already apply. Understanding how those standards operate across the range of AI tools now embedded in the justice system is not optional for practitioners. It has become a baseline professional obligation.

Computer Vision and Facial RecognitionComputer vision tools analyze visual data to identify faces, read license plates, enhance video, or detect objects.[8] When a computer vision output is offered to connect a defendant to a location or act, it constitutes an assertion about identity that must satisfy evidentiary reliability standards.

Under Daubert/FRE 702 standard courts must evaluate the system’s testing protocols, known error rates, peer review history, and the standards controlling its operation.[9] Facial recognition systems generate probabilistic outputs with measurable false-positive rates that may vary across demographic groups.[10] Video enhancement systems may interpolate or reconstruct pixels in ways that alter perceived content.[11]

Despite widespread law enforcement use, no court has subjected facial recognition to a rigorous Daubert analysis and found it admissible as identification evidence, and law review scholarship directly confronting admissibility has generally concluded that the methodology lacks general acceptance within the relevant scientific community, casting serious doubt on whether facial recognition as actually deployed can satisfy Daubert’s testing and error rate requirements.[12]

Under Frye, the inquiry focuses on whether the specific methodology is generally accepted within the biometrics or computer vision research community.[13] This is a distinct question from whether the tool has been widely adopted by law enforcement agencies. In People v. Carrington,[14] a prosecution expert testified that facial recognition technology was “in its infancy” and that law enforcement did not use it as the sole basis to identify or eliminate a suspect , acknowledging that operational deployment had outpaced scientific validation.[15] That testimony, made in the context of a Kelly/Frye hearing, underscores that widespread law enforcement adoption of the technology but also suggests that it does not yet satisfy Frye’s general acceptance requirement.

Evidentiary Issue: A facial recognition output is a probabilistic assessment, not a definitive identification. Admissibility requires disclosure of the system’s error rate and the conditions under which the output was generated.

Automated Audio TranscriptionSpeech-to-text systems generate transcripts used in charging decisions, impeachment, and probation proceedings.[16]These systems infer words probabilistically from acoustic data and language models.[17]

If a transcript is introduced to establish what was said, reliability must be examined.[18] Courts should consider error rates under acoustic conditions comparable to the recording at issue, performance variation across accents and dialects, model versioning and updates since the time of the recording, and the availability of independent validation studies.[19]Automated transcription is not clerical work when it functions as evidence.[20] It is a technical methodology subject to Rule 702 and Daubert scrutiny.

Risk Assessment InstrumentsRisk assessment tools generate predictive scores regarding future conduct.[21] When these scores are cited to justify detention or restrictive supervision, they operate as algorithmic assertions about future behavior.[22]

The result of these assessments must be understood as evidence subject to Frye or Daubert/FRE 702 scrutiny, requiring validation studies conducted on populations comparable to the defendant, disclosure of false positive and false negative rates, independent peer review of the methodology, and transparency sufficient for meaningful cross-examination. Proprietary models shielded from methodological scrutiny raise fundamental reliability concerns, because evidentiary law requires meaningful challenge, not merely the opportunity for it.[23]

That standard is difficult to satisfy when the methodology itself is inaccessible. Many AI systems operate as black boxes[24] with internal reasoning opaque even to their developers, raising a threshold question for any court: how can reliability be evaluated for a process that cannot be explained? In Wisconsin v. Loomis,[25] the court upheld the use of a proprietary risk assessment algorithm at sentencing despite the defendant’s inability to examine its methodology, reasoning it was merely one factor among many.[26] However, courts that admit AI-generated evidence without adequate scrutiny of the underlying methodology risk undermining both fairness and constitutional due process.

Validation Problem: Widespread judicial use does not establish scientific reliability. Many instruments in routine use have not been validated on the specific populations to which they are applied.

Machine-Learning Classification and Flagging SystemsMachine-learning systems flag anomalies such as behavioral patterns, digital communications, or geographic clusters for human review.[27] When cited to justify judicial findings, they function as classification evidence subject to reliability scrutiny.[28]

Courts should examine the composition of training data, bias mitigation efforts, false positive rates, and whether independent validation has occurred. The presence of a human reviewer does not eliminate the algorithm’s evidentiary role if the output materially shaped the factual record presented in the proceeding.

AI-Enhanced EvidenceAI-enhanced evidence presents distinct challenges when offered to a finder of fact like a jury. Unlike raw data or unaltered recordings, AI-enhanced outputs, whether clarified surveillance footage, noise-filtered audio, or reconstructed imagery, carry an implicit authority that jurors may struggle to evaluate critically. The concern is not merely accuracy but perception: jurors may tend to assign disproportionate weight to demonstrative evidence, a phenomenon courts have long recognized. Where the enhancement methodology has not been validated, peer reviewed, or tested for error rates, the risk is that the jury is not evaluating the underlying event but rather the algorithm’s interpretation of it.

Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707The increasing complexity of layered algorithmic systems is precisely what has driven attention at the federal rule making level. A proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 would specifically address machine-generated outputs from forensic or algorithmic systems.[29] While still under consideration, the proposal reflects growing recognition that courts confront machine-derived results requiring structured reliability review.

The proposal tracks Rule 702: the proponent must establish that the system is reliable, that it was properly applied, and that the output is what it purports to be.[30] Whether adopted in its current form or modified, the proposal signals a clear direction. AI-generated outputs are evidentiary assertions subject to explicit judicial gatekeeping, and the standards governing that gatekeeping are becoming more detailed, not less.

Generative AI and PrivilegeAlthough privilege doctrine differs from evidentiary reliability, it reflects the same underlying principle: existing legal standards govern AI tools without modification for novelty.

In United States v. Heppner,[31] the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York held that communications between a defendant and a publicly available generative AI system were not protected by attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine.[32] The court reasoned that AI platforms are not lawyers, communications with them are not inherently confidential, and materials generated independently of counsel do not become privileged merely because they are later shared with an attorney.[33]

That holding returns the analysis to its foundation. Novelty does not create exemption from established doctrine, and the same evidentiary standards that have always governed technical proof in American courtrooms apply with equal force to algorithmic outputs today.

The Doctrinal Bottom Line: AI Evidence Admissibility Artificial intelligence does not sit outside evidentiary law. Questions of AI evidence admissibility are governed by the same standards that apply to all technical proof. The governing standards, Frye, Daubert, Rule 702, and their state equivalents, already provide the analytical framework.

By the time AI outputs reach the courtroom, they may have already shaped charging decisions, investigative focus, or supervision conditions. That upstream influence makes downstream scrutiny more important, not less. Once introduced to justify liberty-affecting determinations, reliability standards must be applied with the same rigor courts bring to any other technical evidence. The evidentiary tools exist. The Judges and attorney’s obligation is to use them.

*This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Bureau of Justice Assistance, What Is Risk Assessment, Public Safety Risk Assessment Claringhouse, (last visited Mar. 3, 2026).

[2] Clare Garvie, What Defense Counsel Should Know About Facial Recognition Technology, The Champion, May 2023, at 18.

[3] Nat’l Court Reporters Ass’n, Emerging Ethical and Legal Issues Related to the Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), Automatic Speech Recognition (ASR), Voice Cloning, and Digital Audio Recording of Legal Proceedings (Nov. 2023).

[4] Anuar Assamidanov & Nicholas Powell, Striking a Balance: Human Discretion and Algorithmic Insights in Parole Supervision Decision-Making (Oct. 2023) (unpublished manuscript).

[5] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).

[6] Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

[7] Federal Rule of Evidence 702: Fed. R. Evid. 702.

[8] Rina Diane Caballar & Cole Stryker, What Is Computer Vision?, IBM Think (last visited Mar. 3, 2026).

[9] Hon. Samuel A. Thumma, Science Bench Book for Judges § 7.2, at 221 (2d ed. 2020), https://justicespeakersinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/7-Trial.pdf.

[10] Patrick Grother, Mei Ngan & Kayee Hanaoka, Face Recognition Vendor Test Part 3: Demographic Effects, Nat’l Inst. of Standards & Tech. (Dec. 2019).

[11] Id.

[12] Paul W. Grimm, Maura R. Grossman & Gordon V. Cormack, Artificial Intelligence as Evidence, 19 Nw. J. Tech. & Intell. Prop. 9 (2021).

[13] Science Bench Book for Judges, supra note 9.

[14] People v. Carrington, No. B265888, 2018 WL 671903 (Cal. Ct. App. Feb. 2, 2018)

[15] Id.

[16] Antonino Ferraro, Antonio Galli, Valerio La Gatta & Marco Postiglione, Benchmarking Open Source and Paid Services for Speech to Text: An Analysis of Quality and Input Variety, 6 Frontiers in Big Data 1210559 (2023).

[17] Id.

[18] Emerging Ethical and Legal Issues, supra note 3.

[19] Ferraro et al., supra note 16.

[20] Emerging Ethical and Legal Issues, supra note 3.

[21] Evan M. Lowder, Carmen L. Diaz, Eric Grommon & Bradley R. Ray, Effects of Pretrial Risk Assessments on Release Decisions and Misconduct Outcomes Relative to Practice as Usual, 73 J. Crim. Just. 101754 (2021).

[22] Id.

[23] Andrea Nishi, Privatizing Sentencing, 119 Colum. L. Rev. 1671 (2019).

[24] A black box is a system, device, or process whose internal workings are hidden or unknown, but whose inputs and outputs can be observed and analyzed.

[25] Loomis v. Wisconsin, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016),

[26] Id.

[27] Purushottam Perapu, Anomaly Detection in User Behaviour Using Machine Learning for Cloud Platforms, 11 Int’l J. Sci. Rsch. Computer Sci. Engineering & Info. Tech. 805 (2025).

[28] Kashif Javed & Jianxin Li, Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Adjudication: Semantic Biasness Classification and Identification in Legal Judgement (SBCILJ), 10 Heliyon e30184 (2024).

[29] Proposed New FRE 707, UIC L. Libr. (June 10, 2025).

[30] Id.

[31] nited States v. Heppner, No. 25 Cr. 503 (JSR) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 10, 2026) (oral ruling).

[32] Id.

[33] Id.

The post When AI Becomes Evidence: Frye, Daubert, and Algorithmic Proof appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

AI in Community Supervision: Where It Is Already EmbeddedThis article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 3E in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into the field of community supervision, including probation, parole, and pretrial services, has been underway for some time. As it continues to evolve, community supervision leaders are increasingly partnering with information technology professionals to expand its application across supervision practices.

Early use of AI in community supervision emerged through automated systems designed to produce risk and need assessments and assist in monitoring behavior. Applications may now anticipate violations, shape routine supervision decisions such as contact frequency, testing schedules, supervision conditions, and help officers determine appropriate responses to non-compliant or problematic behavior.[1] These systems may also, help discern the drivers of the criminal conduct (criminogenic needs), while identifying specific behaviors to be addressed, which are specific applications of evidence based principles.

Risk Assessment and Resource Allocation in SupervisionRisk and need assessments guide how supervision resources are allocated across pretrial, probation, and parole caseloads.[2] Automated systems assign individuals to classification levels that determine supervision intensity, reporting requirements, testing frequency, and surveillance strategies.[3]

Once assigned, these classifications may remain static or adjust over time depending on the individual’s behavior and the design of the tool. These adjustments influence officer workload, supervision priorities, and enforcement thresholds. [4] The underlying goal is to balance public safety with efficient resource use by directing attention toward higher-risk individuals while minimizing unnecessary intervention for lower-risk cases.

Across pretrial services and community supervision, automated systems also increasingly enhance impact and improve outcomes by guiding linkage to programs and services based on assessed needs and recommended interventions.[5] Diversion opportunities, treatment referrals, responsivity factors, specialty supervision tracks, and early termination pathways are often informed by algorithmic screening.[6]

From Monitoring to Decision-Making: The Role of Automated AlertsElectronic monitoring, a long-standing tool in community supervision, has expanded significantly in both pretrial and post-sentence contexts. Modern systems generate continuous streams of behavioral data through location tracking, alcohol monitoring, biometric verification, and smartphone-based reporting.[7]

These systems no longer simply record information. They translate data into alerts, compliance indicators, and summaries that directly influence case reviews.[8] For individuals under supervision, monitoring is continuous, and alerts are often generated with limited context. Once generated, these alerts can carry forward, shaping future supervision decisions and enforcement responses.[9]

The Hidden Infrastructure: How AI Shapes Supervision OutcomesSupervision technologies are typically implemented through administrative processes.[10] They are selected through procurement decisions, configured through agency policy, and managed as part of routine operations.[11]

Design assumptions, including thresholds, alert triggers, and decision rules, are often set during implementation and may receive limited ongoing review. Yet these embedded rules influence supervision outcomes in meaningful ways.[12]

In daily practice, system-generated information routinely feeds into case notes, violation reports, and revocation recommendations.[13] Risk classifications, compliance summaries, monitoring alerts, and predictive indicators become part of the operational record, shaping how individuals are perceived and managed within the system.[14] Care must be taken to monitor the sources and fidelity of the underlying data.

Transparency, Data Quality, and the Limits of Algorithmic InsightA central concern is the limited visibility into how these systems generate outputs. Officers and decision-makers often rely on system-generated information without full insight into the underlying data, the methodology used, or the degree of uncertainty involved.

Data quality, input accuracy, and system design all affect output reliability. Without careful oversight, there is a risk that flawed or incomplete data may influence supervision decisions. Monitoring the source, integrity, and fidelity of data is essential to maintaining fairness and accuracy in supervision practices.

Balancing AI and Professional Judgment in Community SupervisionAs AI becomes further integrated into routine operations, the central challenge is not whether these tools will be used, but how they are used.

Community supervision remains fundamentally a human-centered practice. Officers make decisions about contact, intervention, and enforcement that directly affect individual outcomes. AI does not replace these decisions, but it does shape the environment in which they are made by directing attention, structuring workflows, and influencing priorities.

The risk is not that AI will take over decision-making, but that it will quietly narrow it. Effective use of these tools requires understanding their role as part of the supervision infrastructure while preserving the critical role of professional judgment.

For supervision professionals, how these systems are implemented and understood will directly impact workload management, resource deployment, training, agency policy, and ultimately the effectiveness of supervision itself.

* This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Am. Prob. & Parole Ass’n, Offender Supervision with Electronic Technology (n.d.).

[2] Kristofer Bret Bucklen, Grant Duwe & Faye S. Taxman, The Future Is Now: Establishing State of the Art Standards in Risk and Needs Assessment, in Perspectives, Vol. 46, No. 2, at ___ (Am. Prob. & Parole Ass’n Dec. 12, 2025).

[3] Id.

[4] Id.

[5] Joe Russo, Dulani Woods, George B. Drake & Brian A. Jackson, Leveraging Technology to Enhance Community Supervision: Identifying Needs to Address Current and Emerging Concerns (RAND Corp. 2023).

[6] Id.

[7] Pew Charitable Trs., Use of Electronic Offender Monitoring Expands as Technology Advances (2021).

[8] Off. of Legal Pol’y, U.S. Dep’t of Just., Electronic Monitoring: Policy Considerations for Criminal Justice Agencies(2021), https://www.justice.gov/olp/media/1381796/dl.

[9] Id.

[10] Bruno Miguel Vital Bernardo, Henrique São Mamede, João Manuel Pereira Barroso & Vítor Manuel Pereira Duarte dos Santos, Data Governance & Quality Management—Innovation and Breakthroughs Across Different Fields, 9 J. Innov. & Knowledge 100598 (Oct.–Dec. 2024),

[11] J. Redden et al., Monitoring Technologies for Community Supervision (Nat’l Inst. Just. 2023),

[12] Id.

[13] Russo et al., supra note 12.

[14] Eur. Data Prot. Supervisor, Human Oversight of Automated Decision-Making (Sept. 23, 2025)

The post How AI Influences Community Supervision Practices appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 3D in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

An Introduction for Judges Navigating a Changing SystemArtificial intelligence (AI) is embedded in the daily operations of most courts. AI in court administration now functions within case management platforms, scheduling tools, drafting assistance programs, and risk assessment reports that shape how information reaches the bench.[1] Judges frequently rely on these tools in their routine workflow without recognizing them as applications of AI.

For judges who have not focused closely on these technologies, that is entirely understandable. AI has entered the justice system gradually, typically through administrative modernization rather than deliberate judicial policy choices. Few judges or court administrators voted to adopt AI, and only a small percentage of courts have implemented formal AI training for their personnel.[2] Training, however, is essential. While judges should not be expected to master coding, they are responsible for understanding how AI tools may influence the operations of their courts.

What Do We Mean by AI in Courts?In the court context, AI in court administration generally refers to software systems that analyze data and generate outputs based on patterns learned from that data[3]. These tools appear within case management platforms, [4] scheduling systems, drafting assistance programs, and risk assessment reports prepared for the court.

Unlike traditional software that simply stores information, AI systems identify patterns and generate outputs such as predictions, classifications, or suggested language. These systems do not “think” in a human sense, [5] but they structure information in ways that influence decisions. Judges do not need to fully understand these systems to be affected by them.

Case Management Systems: AI in Court Administration and the Modern DocketMost courts rely on case management systems to process filings, assign cases, and track procedural steps.[6] Increasingly, these systems use automated rules and analytics to prioritize matters, categorize cases, and flag procedural issues.[7]These features improve efficiency, reduce backlog, and promote consistency. But they also shape what reaches the bench and how it is framed. When one category of case is accelerated over another, the system influences workflow and perception.[8]

Many judges and court administrators did not select these systems; they inherited them. Nonetheless, the design of these platforms affects what appears on the docket and how it appears. Efficiency is valuable, but it is not always neutral.

Modern tools estimate hearing length, predict continuances or no-shows, and optimize calendars based on historical data.[9] What appears to be routine administrative improvement can influence how justice unfolds. A five-minute hearing conveys something different than a thirty-minute one, and a docket organized by risk categories can frame expectations before a case is called. If the underlying data reflects past disparities, those patterns may persist. Judges see the schedule, not the assumptions driving it. Understanding how the system works is essential to fairness.

Drafting Assistance: When Software Suggests LanguageAdministrative systems shape timing and exposure, but AI’s influence does not end with the docket; it can extend into the language of judicial decisions. Many chambers now use drafting assistance tools.[10] These tools may summarize motions, identify relevant precedents, or suggest language for routine orders.[11] Some rely on large language models trained on extensive bodies of legal text.[12] Used carefully, these tools can reduce clerical burden and increase efficiency. They can help manage heavy dockets. But judicial writing is not merely administrative output. It is the public articulation of reasoning. Findings of fact, conclusions of law, and discretionary explanations form the backbone of judicial legitimacy.

Judges must remain the authors of their decisions. Drafting tools can assist. They cannot replace independent reasoning. Over reliance risks standardizing language in ways that obscure nuance or embed prior biases contained in the training data. The responsibility for the order remains with the judge, regardless of how it was drafted.

Risk Scores in Hearings: Understanding the Anchor EffectBeyond influencing how decisions are written, AI appears directly in the courtroom through quantitative risk assessments that frame how parties and facts are perceived. Pretrial services, probation departments, and correctional agencies may generate scores predicting failure to appear, recidivism, or supervision violations.[13]

These scores often appear in pretrail or probation reports before the court.[14] They may be described as advisory. Nonetheless, a numerical score can anchor perception. Behavioral research consistently shows that initial numerical references influence subsequent judgments, even among experienced professionals[15]. A label such as “high risk” can narrow attention and shape expectations. Judges do not need to reject risk tools outright. But they must understand their limitations. Risk scores are not objective facts; they are outputs of design choices.

The Judge as the Last Line of GovernanceThe judiciary holds a unique institutional role. Administrative systems may influence cases, but judicial rulings confer legitimacy. When a court relies on a record shaped by automated tools, it effectively endorses that structure.

For this reason, “we did not adopt it” is no longer a sufficient answer. Courts may encounter AI after it has shaped charging decisions, supervision conditions, scheduling priorities, or risk framing. The judge becomes the final checkpoint.

Judicial oversight does not require technical expertise in computer science. It requires principled inquiry and institutional awareness. Judges must be prepared to ask:

• What tool generated this output?
• How was it integrated into the report before the court?
• Has the defendant had an opportunity to challenge it?
• Is there transparency regarding methodology and validation?

These are not abstract concerns. They are core elements of due process.

Education as Judicial ResponsibilityArtificial intelligence in court administration is not a distant policy debate. It is a present operational reality. Judges who are unfamiliar with these systems are not behind; they are in the same position as many across the country. The pace of technological adoption has outstripped formal training.

The solution is not resistance to innovation. It is informed engagement through education and training.

Understanding how AI in court administration shapes records, schedules, language, and risk framing is now part of safeguarding judicial independence. The court is not merely deciding cases. It is ensuring that the systems structuring those cases operate consistently with constitutional principles.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., Guidance for Implementing AI in Courts (last visited Feb. 26, 2026).

[2] Thomson Reuters Inst., Courts Confront Staffing Crisis Amid Growing Caseloads (last visited Feb. 26, 2026).

[3] Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., Guidance for Implementing AI in Courts, supra note 1.

[4] Vasiliy A. Laptev & Daria R. Feyzrakhmanova, Application of Artificial Intelligence in Justice: Current Trends and Future Prospects, 4 Hum.-Centric Intelligent Sys. 394 (2024).

[5] Id.

[6] Case Management and Judicial Efficiency, Crim. Just. iResearchNet (last visited Feb. 26, 2026).

[7] Id.

[8] Dovilė Barysė & Roee Sarel, Algorithms in the Court: Does It Matter Which Part of the Judicial Decision-Making Is Automated?, 32 Artif. Intell. & L. 1 (2023).

[9] Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., Performance Measurement, (last visited Feb. 26, 2026).

[10] Aleeza Furman, AI Opinion-Drafting Tools Are Emerging, but Will They Gain Traction with Judges?, Legal Tech News (Sept. 24, 2025).

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Francesco Borgesano et al., Artificial Intelligence and Justice: A Systematic Literature Review and Future Research Perspectives on Justice 5.0, 39 Int’l Rev. L. & Econ. ___ (2025).

[14] Id.

[15] Pamela M. Casey, Kevin S. Burke & Steve Leben, Minding the Court: Enhancing the Decision-Making Process, 50 Court Rev. 76 (2014).

The post Hardwiring Justice: AI in Court Administration and Judicial Decision-Making appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 3C in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Artificial intelligence (AI) may sound technical or distant, but it is already affecting criminal cases. Prosecutors’ offices use software tools that help draft motions, analyze patterns in past cases, summarize reports, and sort large amounts of digital evidence.[1] Courts rely on computerized risk scores to assist with bail and sentencing decisions. Probation departments use automated systems to flag violations.[2]

A defense attorney does not need to understand coding or computer science to understand this important point: technology is helping the state process cases faster and organize information more efficiently.[3] The question for defense attorneys is whether they will learn to use similar tools in a way that strengthens defense practice.

Data is already suggesting that AI is a valuable tool to defense counsel to increase efficiency, save money, and improve case preparation. Surveys of defense attorneys have shown that a majority believe AI outperforms manual evidence analysis, saving 6–10 hours per week and more than $30,000 annually.[4]

What AI Actually Is (and What It Is Not)AI, in practical terms, is simply software that can analyze text and data quickly and generate organized responses.[5] It is not a lawyer. It does not exercise judgment. It can make mistakes. But when used carefully, it can function like a very fast research assistant.

For attorneys unfamiliar with AI, the safest way to think about it is this: it is a drafting and organizing tool.[6] It can help you gather information and structure your thinking.[7] t cannot replace your legal judgment, your strategic decisions, or your ethical responsibilities.

AI for Legal Research and Motion PracticeAI for defense attorneys is particularly effective in legal research and motion preparation.[8] AI tools can help summarize legal documents, identify leading cases, and outline arguments for motions.[9] For example, when preparing a motion to suppress, an AI tool can summarize recent appellate decisions on prolonged traffic stops in your jurisdiction. The tool may provide a structured overview of relevant cases and legal standards. Because these systems can generate inaccurate or fabricated information, attorneys must verify every citation before relying on it.[10]

When used carefully, AI can make the initial research process significantly more efficient.[11] It can also help attorneys think through arguments[12] by identifying weaknesses in legal theories or suggesting counterarguments the prosecution may raise.[13] Used this way, AI functions as a brainstorming aid rather than a decision-maker.

Using AI for Discovery Review and Case OrganizationModern criminal cases often involve large volumes of digital material, including body camera footage, phone records, lengthy reports, and recorded interviews.[14] AI for defense attorneys can assist in organizing documents, generating timelines, summarizing transcripts, and identifying inconsistencies in witness statements.[15]Instead of spending hours manually reviewing materials, attorneys can use AI to structure information and focus attention on legally significant issues.

Confidentiality and Data Security ConcernsConfidentiality remains critical. Attorneys must avoid uploading privileged or sensitive client information into public AI systems that store or reuse user data.[16] Before using any AI platform, counsel should confirm how it handles data retention and privacy.[17] If uncertainty exists, use should be limited to publicly available materials or redacted information. [18] Ethical obligations governing client confidentiality continue to apply in full. [19]

AI for Defense Attorneys in Risk Assessment ChallengesAI can also assist attorneys in understanding and challenging risk assessment tools.[20] Many courts rely on computerized scoring systems to evaluate pretrial risk or sentencing factors.[21] These scores are often presented as objective, but they are based on specific assumptions and data inputs.[22] AI tools can summarize critiques of these systems, explain validation methods, and identify documented concerns about bias or error rates.[23] This provides attorneys with clearer language and stronger analytical grounding when challenging overreliance on such tools.

Using AI for Cross-Examination and Trial PreparationFor cross-examination preparation, AI can help generate potential lines of questioning. [24] An attorney may ask a tool to identify common weaknesses in eyewitness testimony or vulnerabilities in chain-of-custody procedures. [25]

The system may suggest areas worth exploring, but counsel remains responsible for determining which questions are appropriate and strategically sound. [26] In this role, AI expands preparation without replacing professional judgment.

AI in Sentencing Advocacy and Mitigation StrategyIn sentencing advocacy, AI can help organize mitigation information, compare sentencing patterns, and structure alternative sentencing proposals. [27]

It cannot tell your client’s story. That remains your responsibility. But it can help present that story in a clearer and more organized way.

Ethical Limits of AI for Defense Attorneys There are firm boundaries. AI should never advise your client, determine plea strategy, evaluate credibility, or make final legal decisions. It should not replace factual investigation or professional judgment.

AI is a tool for organizing and analyzing information, not for practicing law independently.

Verification Is Non-Negotiable: Avoiding AI HallucinationsThe limits and careful use of AI cannot be overstated. In the past, a properly formatted legal citation generally indicated that a case existed. That is no longer a safe assumption.

Non-existent precedents and cases have already been litigated in the courts. In Mata v. Avianca, Inc.[28], a federal district court rejected non-existent precedent generated by AI, stating: “A fake opinion is not existing law… An attempt to persuade the court or oppose an adversary by relying on fake opinions is an abuse of the adversary system.”

Similarly, in Park v. Kim,[29] an attorney was referred to a grievance panel for relying on an AI-generated citation to a non-existent case. The Appeals Court reiterated a basic but critical rule: attorneys must verify the existence and validity of any authority they rely upon.

These cautionary examples are in no way meant to deter defense attorneys from the effective use of AI. The use of AI will likely become inevitable for all. The duty for due diligence in investigating the veracity of the information is non-negotiable.

How Defense Attorneys Should Start Using AIFor attorneys new to AI, the most important step is cautious experimentation. Start small. Use it for research summaries or drafting outlines. Verify everything. Keep client confidentiality front and center. Over time, you may find that it reduces time spent on mechanical tasks and increases time available for strategy, investigation, and client communication.

Artificial intelligence will continue to shape how prosecutors and courts handle cases. Ignoring it does not prevent its influence. Understanding it, even at a basic level, allows you to respond more effectively. Defense attorneys are not required to become technology experts. They are required to provide competent representation. In today’s legal environment, that includes understanding how technology affects cases and using available tools wisely to protect clients’ rights.

AI should not be something mysterious operating in the background of your courtroom. When approached carefully and ethically, it can become a practical tool that helps you manage workload, strengthen arguments, and advocate more effectively for beneficial outcomes for your clients.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Ralph Losey, Prosecutors and AI: Navigating Justice in the Age of Algorithms, JD Supra (Aug. 29, 2024).

[2] The Evolving Legal Landscape: Will Artificial Intelligence Help or Hurt?, UC Riverside Extension, (last visited Feb. 7, 2026).

[3] Losey, Prosecutors and AI, supra note 1.

[4] Based on a survey conducted by Centiment for Rev. between September 11 and September 29, 2025. The results are based on 511 completed surveys. In order to qualify, respondents were screened to be residents of the United States, over 18 years of age, and identify as legal professionals working in criminal defense or criminal justice. Data is unweighted, and the margin of error is approximately +/-4% for the overall sample with a 95% confidence level.

[5] What Is Artificial Intelligence?, IBM, (last visited Feb. 25, 2026).

[6] How Lawyers Can Work Faster Without Sacrificing Accuracy, A.B.A. Law Prac. Div., Law Tech. Today (2025).

[7] Id.

[8] How to Effectively Use AI for Legal Research, Thomson Reuters (n.d.).

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] AI in Civil Defense Litigation: A Powerful Tool When Used Correctly, Nat’l L. Rev. (n.d.).

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Sarah E. Lageson, Criminal Data Function Creep, 116 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 113 (2026).

[15] AI in Civil Defense Litigation, supra note 10.

[16] How to Use AI and Keep Law Firm and Client Data Safe, Thomson Reuters (n.d.).

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Nat’l Ass’n of Crim. Def. Lawyers, Risk Assessment Tools in the Criminal Legal System (Nov. 18, 2020).

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] AI for Witness Prep: A Trail Lawyer’s Guide to AI, NexLaw (n.d.),

[25] Id.

[26] Id.

[27] Marion Oswald, Aiden Worsley & Paul Smith, The Use of AI in Sentencing and the Management of Offenders (Alan Turing Inst. 2023).

[28] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22CV01461(PKC), 2023 WL 4114965, at *12 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023).

[29] Park v. Kim, No. 22-2057, 91 F.4th 610 (2d Cir. 2024)

The post Hardwiring Justice: Artificial Intelligence for Defense Attorneys: Turning AI Into a Defense Tool appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The Rise of Police Body-Worn Cameras and Public ExpectationsBody-worn cameras (BWCs) were heralded as a transformative tool for police accountability. In the wake of highly publicized use-of-force incidents, particularly those involving minority communities, public confidence in law enforcement declined significantly. Policymakers and community advocates turned to technology as a means to increase transparency and restore trust.

The concept of body-worn cameras first gained traction in the United Kingdom before expanding rapidly throughout the United States. Over the last decade, most large police departments in America have adopted BWCs as standard equipment. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, approximately 80% of large police departments had adopted body-worn cameras by 2016 (Hyland, 2018). Federal funding through the U.S. Department of Justice Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program further accelerated nationwide adoption (U.S. Department of Justice, 2022).

Public support for BWCs was strong from the outset. Many believed that recorded footage would deter misconduct and provide objective documentation in the event of controversial incidents.

Do Body-Worn Cameras Improve Police Accountability? What the Research ShowsEarly research suggested potential reductions in citizen complaints following BWC implementation (Ariel et al., 2015). These findings contributed to the perception that cameras could serve as a direct mechanism for improving officer behavior and reducing use-of-force incidents.

However, subsequent studies have produced more complex and less consistent results. A large multi-site randomized controlled trial found no statistically significant reductions in use of force or complaints across several departments (Yokum et al., 2019). Broader reviews of the literature similarly conclude that the impact of BWCs on behavior is mixed and highly dependent on agency policy and implementation (Lum et al., 2020).

The research does not support a simple cause-and-effect relationship between cameras and accountability.

Why Body-Worn Cameras Alone Do Not Build Public TrustDespite billions of dollars invested in equipment, storage, and policy development, broader public trust in law enforcement remains fragile. Research examining public perceptions suggests that while BWCs may increase perceived transparency, they do not automatically improve legitimacy or trust (Lum et al., 2020).

In many cases, the absence of footage itself has become a source of suspicion. When cameras are not activated or footage is unavailable, the technology can reinforce distrust rather than alleviate it.

Trust is not created by the presence of recording devices. It is shaped by how institutions behave, how decisions are made, and whether the public perceives those decisions as fair and consistent.

The Limits of Technology: Cameras Record, They Do Not InterpretThe limitations of BWCs highlight a fundamental reality: technology alone cannot produce accountability. Cameras record events, but they do not interpret context, evaluate split-second decision-making, or enforce policy compliance.

Video evidence, while powerful, is not self-executing. It requires human judgment to determine what occurred, why it occurred, and whether it complied with law and policy. Without that interpretive layer, footage alone cannot resolve disputes or ensure fairness.

Leadership, Supervision, and the Reality of Police AccountabilityTrue accountability is a function of leadership, supervision, and organizational culture. Effective leaders establish clear expectations regarding conduct and ensure consistent review of footage for coaching, training, and policy compliance.

Departments that integrate BWCs into a broader accountability framework, rather than relying on them as standalone solutions, are more likely to see meaningful outcomes. This includes structured supervisory review, clear activation policies, and consistent enforcement of standards.

Absent these elements, cameras risk becoming passive recording devices rather than active tools for improvement.

Body-Worn Cameras as Evidence, Training, and Officer ProtectionNone of this diminishes the value of body-worn cameras. They serve important and legitimate purposes in modern policing. BWCs enhance evidence collection, provide objective documentation for investigations, and protect officers against false complaints.

They also offer significant training value. Footage can be used to reinforce effective communication, highlight decision-making under stress, and improve officer performance over time.

These benefits are real, but they are distinct from the broader goal of accountability.

Conclusion: Accountability Is Organizational, Not TechnologicalAfter more than a decade of widespread implementation, the lesson is clear: body-worn cameras are a supplement to accountability, not its foundation.

The expectation that cameras alone would rebuild trust or eliminate misconduct was overly optimistic. Technology can support accountability, but it cannot create it.

Accountability is organizational. It is built through leadership, reinforced through supervision, and sustained through culture. Cameras may document what happens, but they do not determine what happens next.

ReferencesAriel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509–535.

Hyland, S. S. (2018). Body-worn cameras in law enforcement agencies, 2016. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Lum, C., Stoltz, M., Koper, C. S., & Scherer, J. A. (2020). Research on body-worn cameras: What we know, what we need to know. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(1), 93–118.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2022). Body-Worn Camera Policy and Implementation Program.

Yokum, D., Ravishankar, A., & Coppock, A. (2019). Evaluating the effects of police body-worn cameras: A randomized controlled trial. The Lab @ DC.

The post Body-Worn Cameras: Accountability Tool or Accountability Illusion? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 3B-2 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Artificial intelligence is increasingly present in prosecutors’ offices, often embedded quietly within existing software systems. Tools that summarize documents, transcribe audio, assist with research, or organize large volumes of digital evidence promise efficiency at a time when caseloads and discovery obligations continue to expand.

But for prosecutors, the relevant question is not whether AI is powerful or convenient. It is whether AI can be used without compromising constitutional obligations, ethical duties, statutory confidentiality, and public trust.

The answer is yes, but only if AI is treated as an assistive technology, governed intentionally, and constrained by existing legal and ethical rules. AI does not create new discretion. It does not reduce responsibility. And it does not alter the prosecutor’s core duty to seek justice within the bounds of the law.

One Principle Above All: Responsibility Never TransfersAcross ethical rules, court decisions, and national guidance, one principle governs the use of AI in prosecution:

When AI-assisted work is wrong, the prosecutor is accountable.

There is no ethical safe harbor in automation.
There is no delegation of judgment to software.
There is no defense that “the system recommended it.”

AI may assist prosecutorial work, but it does not carry ethical duties, constitutional obligations, or professional responsibility. Those remain human, personal, and non-delegable.[1]

Threshold Legal Constraints: When AI May Not Be UsedBefore considering how AI might assist prosecution, offices must identify when AI may not be used at all. These are not best practices or aspirational guidelines, they are legal gatekeepers.

CJIS Compliance Is MandatoryAny AI system that stores, processes, or analyzes criminal justice information must comply with Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) security requirements. Many publicly available or consumer AI tools do not meet these standards.[2]

If prosecutors cannot clearly establish:

• where data is processed,
• whether it is retained,
• who has access to it,
• and whether the system is CJIS-compliant,

the tool may not be used for case-related work. Security failures are not technical errors; they are failures of professional judgment.

Victim Confidentiality Is Non-NegotiableMany states impose statutory duties to protect victim information, including personal identifiers, medical or counseling records, safety planning details, and information that could reasonably lead to identification.

AI tools may not be used to process, summarize, prioritize, or analyze victim information unless the system is expressly approved for that purpose and fully compliant with all legal protections. Attempts to anonymize or hypothetically reframe victim data do not eliminate these obligations.

AI as an Assistive Tool, Not a Decision MakerWhen legally permissible systems are in place, AI may assist prosecutors in limited, defined ways. Even then, its role must remain subordinate to human judgment.

Charging and Case ScreeningAI tools may surface patterns, flag inconsistencies, or assist with workload management.[3] They may not:

• determine charges,
• recommend enhancements as defaults,
• drive declinations without human review,
• or replace individualized prosecutorial judgment.

Charging authority is vested by law in prosecutors, not vendors or algorithms. Any system that subtly shifts discretion away from human decision-makers raises serious ethical and constitutional concerns.

Discovery Review and Evidence OrganizationAI can assist in organizing large volumes of discovery,[4] identifying duplicates, or clustering materials for review. It may not:

• define disclosure obligations,
• determine what is or is not Brady material,
• filter evidence in a way that obscures exculpatory information.

Prosecutors remain responsible for ensuring that discovery is complete, fair, and constitutionally compliant. Speed is not neutral, and filtering mechanisms must never substitute for legal judgment.

Evidence Triage and Case PreparationAI may help surface information or manage complexity, but prosecutors must remain alert to the risk that algorithmic prioritization can reinforce historical bias, standardize narratives, or crowd out alternative interpretations of the evidence.

AI identifies patterns. It does not assess credibility, context, or justice.

Transparency, Candor, and Due ProcessAI use in prosecution cannot be invisible. If AI meaningfully influences:

• evidence review,
• case screening,
• charging decisions,
• or trial preparation,

prosecutors must be prepared to explain that use to supervisors, courts, and, where required, the defense. Candor to the tribunal includes candor about process, not just outcomes.

As courts increasingly scrutinize algorithmic decision-making, prosecutors should assume that undisclosed AI influence will draw heightened attention, not deference.

Supervision, Training, and Institutional ResponsibilityAI use is not solely an individual attorney issue. It implicates supervisory responsibility at every level.

Office leadership has an affirmative duty to:

• adopt written AI policies,
• define permitted and prohibited uses,
• train attorneys and staff on limitations and risks,
• monitor compliance,
• and update guidance as technology evolves.

When AI is adopted without structure, errors become institutional rather than individual. Courts and disciplinary authorities will look upstream to leadership when failures are foreseeable and preventable.

AI does not reduce supervisory responsibility. It intensifies it.

Documentation and GovernanceResponsible AI use requires governance, not experimentation. Offices should:

• document when AI is used in casework,
• preserve auditability,
• ensure IT and legal review of vendor systems,
• and periodically reassess tools for compliance, bias, and reliability.

Documentation does not authorize impermissible use, but it protects prosecutors when use is appropriate and lawful.

Public Trust and the Legitimacy of ProsecutionProsecutors do not merely process cases; they exercise public authority. When decisions appear automated, opaque, or outsourced to systems the public does not understand, confidence in the justice system erodes.

AI can support fairness and consistency, but only if its role is visible, constrained, and governed deliberately. Prosecutorial discretion does not disappear when mediated by technology; it simply moves. If it moves into systems beyond scrutiny, accountability is lost.

Conclusion: Control, Don’t DriftAI will continue to enter prosecutors’ offices, often through vendor updates and embedded features rather than deliberate adoption. Offices that fail to act intentionally do not avoid risk, they inherit it silently.

Used carefully, AI can assist prosecutors in managing complexity and workload. Used casually, it can undermine ethics, legality, and trust.

The responsible path forward is neither rejection nor blind adoption. It is disciplined use grounded in existing ethical rules, legal constraints, and prosecutorial values, anchored by one immutable principle:

AI does not make prosecutorial decisions. It does not bear ethical responsibility. When AI-assisted work is wrong, the prosecutor remains accountable.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] For a more in-depth discussion on ethical concerns for prosecutors, see Hardwiring Justice, Part 3B-1

[2] See Integrating AI: Guidance and Policies for Prosecutors, National Best Practices Committee, January 2025

[3] ABC 12 News, Genesee County Prosecutor Using AI to Manage Caseload, May 12, 2025.

[4] Teale, C, Prosecutors turn to AI for evidence management and analysis, Route Fifty, January 6, 2025.

The post Hardwiring Justice: Artificial Intelligence in Prosecution appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 3B-1 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Artificial intelligence is no longer optional in modern prosecutors’ offices. It is already embedded in discovery platforms, transcription tools, research products, drafting workflows, and administrative systems. National guidance from the American Bar Association and other legal associations recognize this reality: AI may be used, but it must remain within the boundaries of existing ethical obligations.

For prosecutors, those obligations are not abstract; they are constitutional, professional, and public-facing. And across all guidance, one ethical rule governs everything:

If the work product is flawed, the responsibility belongs to the prosecutor—not the AI. There is no ethical safe harbor in automation.

AI Ethics for Prosecutors’ Offices: The Current RealityProsecutors are using AI today to manage the scale and complexity of discovery and caseloads:

• Organizing and reviewing discovery
• Transcribing and translating audio and video evidence
• Drafting routine motions and notices
• Conducting preliminary legal research
• Managing case flow and administrative backlogs

The ABA, in its Formal Opinion 512, is clear. Generative AI produces statistically plausible outputs, not legal reasoning. These systems can fabricate citations, distort legal holdings, and reproduce bias, often with confidence.[1]

Courts are now seeing a growing number of cases in which attorneys have submitted filings containing fictitious cases, inaccurate quotations, or distorted authorities generated by AI systems.[2] In nearly every instance, the problem has not been the technology itself, but the lawyer’s failure to read, verify, and cross-check what was submitted in their name.

When those errors reach a courtroom, they are not “AI mistakes.” They are the prosecutor’s mistakes.

The Ethical Throughline: Accountability Never TransfersFirst and foremost, prosecutors have an ethical duty “to seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict.”[3] The use of artificial intelligence does not alter that obligation. Technology may change how legal work is performed, but it does not change what prosecutors are responsible for.

Existing ethical rules already provide substantial guidance for the use of AI in legal practice. They do not need to be rewritten for new technology. They need to be understood and applied. Several core duties are especially relevant:

• Competence: Prosecutors must understand the tools they use and independently verify their outputs. (Model Rule 1.1)[4]
• Candor to the Tribunal: False or misleading submissions, intentional or not, violate ethical duties. (Model Rules 3.3 and 8.4(c))[5]
• Confidentiality: Sensitive criminal justice information must be protected from unauthorized disclosure.[6]
• Supervisory Responsibility: Office leadership must set policies, train staff, and enforce compliance. [7]
• Misconduct: Inaccurate or deceptive filings remain misconduct even when generated by software.

Artificial intelligence does not dilute these duties. It concentrates them. Speed increases risk. Scale amplifies error. The ethical burden remains exactly where it has always been: on the prosecutor.

For that reason, prosecutors must independently review and verify any AI-generated material before relying on it. They may not delegate professional judgment to a machine. Tasks that require legal analysis, credibility assessments, charging decisions, or strategic discretion must remain firmly within human control.

AI can assist. It cannot replace responsibility.

CJIS Compliance Is Not OptionalOne critical issue emphasized in prosecutorial guidance,[8] but often overlooked in general ethics discussions, is Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) compliance.

Any AI system that stores, processes, or analyzes criminal justice information must meet strict security requirements, including:

• Role-based access controls
• Multi-factor authentication
• Audit logging
• Encryption at rest and in transit

Overall, publicly available AI tools used casually by lawyers do not meet these standards. Uploading police reports, discovery materials, criminal histories, or witness information into non-compliant systems risks unauthorized disclosure and ethical violations.

From an ethics standpoint, security failures are not technical glitches. They are failures of professional judgment.

Six Practical Guardrails for Prosecutors Using AI1. Use AI Only as an Assistive Tool
AI may organize, summarize, and draft—but it must never determine charging decisions, plea positions, or credibility assessments. 2. Verify Everything Before It Leaves the Office
Every AI-assisted draft, summary, or research product must be independently reviewed. If an error appears in court, responsibility follows the signature, not the software. 3. Adopt a Written Office Policy on AI Use
Supervisory prosecutors have an affirmative ethical duty to define permitted uses, prohibited uses, review requirements, and documentation standards. 4. Restrict AI Access to Criminal Justice Information
Only secure, vetted systems should handle sensitive data. General-purpose AI tools should be limited to hypothetical, anonymized, or administrative tasks. 5. Document AI Use in Casework
Transparency protects prosecutors. Documenting AI assistance helps address discovery questions, court inquiries, and ethical scrutiny. 6. Train Continuously and Assume AI Tools Will Change
Competence is not static. Prosecutors and staff must be trained on AI limitations, bias risks, and security obligations, and policies must evolve as tools evolve.

Is This in a Prosecutor’s Best Interest?Yes, ethically, legally, and institutionally, these guidelines are in a prosecutor’s best interest. Following these guardrails aligns with national ethics guidance and prosecutorial best practices. It reduces exposure to discovery disputes, evidentiary challenges, and disciplinary complaints. Most importantly, it protects the legitimacy of prosecutorial decision-making in an era of heightened scrutiny.

AI will continue to enter prosecutors’ offices, often invisibly, through vendor systems and software updates. Offices that adopt AI without structure do not avoid risk; they inherit it silently.

AI is already here. The ethical question is whether prosecutors will control it deliberately, or inherit its risks by default. AI does not make prosecutorial decisions; it does not bear any ethical responsibility. That responsibility stays with us, and our use of AI must always reflect our obligations to competence, confidentiality, and justice. The responsible path forward is a deliberate, disciplined use grounded in one immutable rule:

When AI-assisted work is wrong, the prosecutor is accountable.

That principle is not a limitation. It is the foundation of ethical prosecution in the age of artificial intelligence.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] ABA Formal Opinion 512, Generative Artificial Intelligence Tools, American Bar Association, July 29, 2024.

[2] See, e.g., Mata v. Avianca, Inc., No. 22-cv-1461 (S.D.N.Y. 2023) (sanctioning attorneys for submitting a brief containing multiple fictitious cases generated by ChatGPT); Park v. Kim, No. 22-cv-2057 (D.N.J. 2023) (referred to Court’s Grievance Panel for submitting fabricated AI-generated authorities); In Minnesota’s Fourth Judicial District (Hennepin County), Nuvola, LLC vs. Morgan Wright, No. 27-CV-HC-15-3802 involved an attorney submitting legal briefs with fake cases, including “Royer v. Nelson,” which were hallucinated by ChatGPT. Attorney was referred to the Professional Responsibility Board and ordered to pay $1,000 penalty). These cases reflect a growing judicial concern that lawyers are relying on AI outputs without meaningful verification.

[3] ABA Standards for Criminal Justice: Prosecution Function std. 3-1.2(b) (Am. Bar Ass’n 4th ed. 2017).

[4] ABA Model rules of Professional Conduct. The ABA Model Rules are used here as a national framework, however, prosecutors must comply with the professional conduct rules in effect in their own jurisdictions.

[5] Id.

[6] Integrating AI: Guidance and Policies for Prosecutors, National Best Practices Committee, January 2025

[7] Id.

[8] Id.

The post Ethical Use of Artificial Intelligence by Prosecutors: One Rule Above All appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #94In this episode of Justice Speaks, Howard Phillips, Deputy Chief Public Defender for the Office of Territorial Public Defenders in the United States Virgin Islands, provides a examination of public defense practice in one of the nation’s most distinctive jurisdictions. Drawing on decades of criminal defense experience across two very different legal landscapes, Mr. Phillips offers an account of how the territorial justice system operates, where it falls short, and what meaningful reform would require.

About Howard PhillipsMr. Phillips was raised in Seattle, Washington, following his family’s relocation from Hobart, Oklahoma. Prior to his legal career, he completed a decade of military service with the United States Army, stationed in Germany in a non-combatant evacuation unit responsible for managing pre-positioned military equipment. Upon his return, he pursued higher education at Seattle Community College, the University of Washington, where he earned a bachelor’s degree in political science, and the University of Washington School of Law. He notes that during his second year of law school he was the sole Black man enrolled, a circumstance he regarded as significant, if not surprising given his upbringing in Seattle.

A Career Built in the CourtroomFrom the outset of his legal career, Mr. Phillips conceived of his role as one of interposition, standing between people who are poor caught in the justice system and the full weight of its consequences. He joined the Seattle public defender’s office, handling misdemeanors, felonies, juvenile matters, and dependency proceedings before transitioning to the Northwest Defenders Association, a private firm specializing in complex criminal defense. There he managed capital cases and high-stakes litigation. Among the most consequential of these was his representation of a seventeen-year-old defendant in a six-month aggravated murder trial, which resulted in a second-degree conviction, a result later vacated on constitutional grounds, ultimately allowing his client to be released.

Relocation to St. CroixMr. Phillips’ decision to relocate to the Virgin Islands was motivated at least in part by personal desire for a more temperate and agrarian environment. His entry into the territorial criminal defense bar was not immediate: both the public defender’s office and the attorney general’s office declined to interview him upon his arrival, notwithstanding his extensive experience. He spent his first eight years on the island practicing insurance defense under attorney Andy Simpson, a period he credits with developing his legal writing, a discipline he observes is frequently neglected in the trial-intensive environment of public defense. He was ultimately recruited into the Office of Territorial Public Defenders after his courtroom conduct came to the attention of its then-deputy chief.

The Office of Territorial Public DefendersMr. Phillips currently directs the St. Croix division of the Office of Territorial Public Defenders. The office also maintains a division covering St. Thomas and St. John. The caseload, which runs into the hundreds annually, is now handled by six attorneys, double the number available when Mr. Phillips first joined. Under the leadership of newly appointed Chief Joe Mo Mead, the office has achieved salary parity with the attorney general’s office, a standard rarely met in public defense nationally. Notably, expert witness funding is administered internally, permitting approval in a matter of days rather than the weeks that judicial authorization might require in other jurisdictions. Mr. Phillips regards both developments as material to the quality of representation his office is able to provide.

The Court Structure of the U.S. Virgin IslandsThe episode addresses the Virgin Islands’ court structure. The Superior Court, formerly the Territorial Court, exercises jurisdiction over local law and it is the court in which the Office of Territorial Public Defenders practices. A separate federal district court, served by a distinct federal public defender’s office, handles federal matters. Of particular significance is the establishment, over the past fifteen years, of a Virgin Islands Supreme Court that now sits as the court of last resort for territorial matters, answering directly to the United States Supreme Court rather than the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Phillips also addresses several procedural distinctions that shape practice in the Superior Court, including the absence of voir dire and the absence of a clearly defined speedy trial standard, features that more closely resemble federal court practice than the procedures familiar to most state court practitioners.

Priorities for ReformWhen asked to identify the single reform most warranted in the territorial justice system, Mr. Phillips identifies the absence of a meaningful speedy trial guarantee. Without a clearly enforceable standard, defendants may remain in pretrial limbo for years at substantial personal cost, he cites one client who incurred over $23,000 in ankle monitoring expenses before his case was resolved. Mr. Phillips identifies the treatment of individuals with mental illness as a second pressing concern. The territorial jail is functioning as a de facto psychiatric facility, cycling individuals through detention without access to adequate treatment, a pattern that fails both the individuals involved and the broader community.

Beyond the Practice of LawThe episode concludes with a discussion of Mr. Phillips’ musical life on the island. The pervasive presence of live music on St. Croix drew him back to the piano after a hiatus of several decades. He currently performs with two ensembles: Moose and Dim, a blues and funk group, and Troublemakers, a jazz band whose members include fellow attorneys. The band performed at the territorial jail during the Christmas season, a detail that speaks, in its modest way, to the same instinct that has defined his legal career: a commitment to being present where the justice system and human vulnerability converge.

We wish to thank Howard Phillips for sharing his insights and experience on Justice Speaks.

The post Public Defense on the Edge of the Map: A Conversation with Howard Phillips appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 3A in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer experimental in law enforcement. It is operational, scaled, and increasingly a part of daily policing activities. Across the country, police agencies use AI-enabled tools to support decisions about patrol deployment, vehicle identification, person identification, sound classification, and investigative prioritization.[1] These systems are now routinely used during the earliest stages of law enforcement activity, often before formal reporting or supervisory review occurs.

In practice, AI is most commonly deployed at the front end of policing, during detection, screening, and triage. It affects what officers notice, what information is surfaced, and what actions are initiated. Understanding how law enforcement uses AI today, and how those uses are likely to expand, is essential to evaluating its operational impact, limitations, and governance needs.

What Law Enforcement Artificial Intelligence Is Using NowPredictive policing systems analyze historical crime data to forecast future crime patterns. [2] Some systems focus on geographic areas, identifying locations where incidents are statistically more likely to occur.[3] Others attempt to identify individuals or networks assessed as higher risk based on past activity and associations.[4] These tools are typically used to support patrol planning and resource allocation. Because they rely on historical data, predictive outputs tend to reflect prior enforcement patterns, including how and where police activity has been concentrated.[5]

Computer vision technologies are among the most widely adopted AI tools in law enforcement.[6] License plate readers (LPRs) automatically capture and index vehicle information at scale, allowing agencies to search historical vehicle location data across time and jurisdictions. Facial recognition systems compare images from body-worn cameras, fixed cameras, or other image sources against reference databases to generate candidate matches.[7] These systems are often used during suspect identification or investigative follow-up. Performance varies based on image quality, database composition, and system design, yet outputs are frequently treated as high-confidence leads.[8]

Audio detection tools, such as gunshot detection systems, use acoustic sensors and machine-learning models to classify sounds and estimate locations.[9] These systems are designed to support faster response by identifying possible firearm discharges or other significant events. [10] In operational use, alerts may also be generated by non-gunfire sounds, such as fireworks or construction noise, requiring officer verification after deployment.[11]

Digital forensics, investigative triage, and analytics platforms operate largely in the background.[12] These systems ingest tips, reports, digital evidence, and records, then rank leads, flag connections, or identify patterns across datasets.[13] Although described as decision-support tools, they strongly influence investigative focus by determining which information is prioritized and which is not surfaced for review.[14]

The Defining Shift: From Observation to Algorithmic SuspicionTraditional policing relied primarily on human observation, professional judgment, and articulated reasoning.[15] These systems do not simply observe events; they structure how information is filtered, organized, and presented.[16] AI tools determine which data points are emphasized, which correlations are flagged, and which signals are treated as actionable.

Once a system flags a vehicle, location, or individual, that output often becomes the starting point for human decision-making. Officers typically see the result of the model rather than the alternative possibilities or uncertainty embedded in the system’s analysis. Over time, this can create a feedback loop: AI outputs influence enforcement activity, enforcement data feeds future models, and system recommendations become increasingly central to operational decisions.

Implementation and Operational Challenges Most law enforcement agencies adopted AI incrementally, tool by tool, often in response to operational demands and vendor availability rather than comprehensive planning.[17] As a result, implementation has outpaced formal governance in many jurisdictions.

Common challenges include:

• System transparency: Many AI tools are proprietary, limiting agencies’ ability to independently audit system performance or fully explain how outputs are generated.[18]
• Training gaps: Officers may be trained on how to use a system, but not on its limitations, performance variability, or appropriate role within broader decision-making.[19]
• Data drift: Models trained on older data may perform inconsistently as crime patterns, environments, or enforcement practices change.[20]
• Policy inconsistency: Agencies often lack clear guidance on when AI outputs may be relied upon, how they should be documented, or when they should be overridden by human judgment.[21]
• Cost: As government entities, law enforcement agencies can at times face budget constraints which can impact their ability to select the program that best fits the needs of their department.

Without explicit policies and oversight, AI tools may become primary inputs into policing decisions rather than one factor among several considered by officers and supervisors.

Where Law Enforcement Artificial Intelligence Is HeadedThe next phase of law enforcement AI focuses on broader system integration and faster decision support.

Agencies are beginning to deploy platforms that combine multiple data streams, including video, audio, location data, criminal history, and open-source information, into unified analytic environments.[22] Rather than receiving isolated alerts, officers may receive ranked recommendations, composite risk indicators, or real-time prioritization cues.

Real-time analytics are expanding, with AI processing live camera feeds, sensor inputs, and dispatch data simultaneously.[23] As these systems mature, the distinction between monitoring conditions and directing action continues to narrow.

Generative AI tools are also entering policing workflows.[24] Agencies are beginning to use these systems to draft reports, summarize investigative materials, and synthesize large volumes of information. These applications offer efficiency gains but also introduce risks related to accuracy, consistency, and over-reliance on machine-generated narratives.[25]

Police agencies may increasingly use virtual reality training to simulate complex, high-risk encounters, allowing officers to practice decision-making, de-escalation, and tactical responses in controlled, repeatable environments. [26] Over time, these systems could support more standardized training, scenario-based performance assessment, and data-informed feedback to shape how officers prepare for real-world interactions.[27]

Why This Moment MattersAI is reshaping policing not through wholesale replacement of officers, but through incremental changes to how information is processed and decisions are supported. These systems affect what draws attention, what is prioritized, and what actions are initiated, often at the earliest stages of law enforcement activity.

The central question moving forward is not whether law enforcement will continue to use AI—it will. What will be key is how these tools are governed, documented, and integrated into professional judgment so that they enhance operational capacity without displacing human responsibility.

What enters the system matters. AI now plays a significant role in determining that.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[1] Policing Project, How Policing Agencies Use Artificial Intelligence, POLICING PROJECT (Sept. 6, 2024)

[2] Rachel Levinson-Waldman, Predictive Policing Explained, BRENNAN CTR. FOR JUST. (2018).

[3] Nat’l Acads. of Scis., Eng’g, & Med., Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work ch. 5 (Nat’l Acads. Press 2024).

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Nat’l Conf. of State Legislatures, Artificial Intelligence and Law Enforcement: The Federal and State Landscape, NCSL (last updated 2023).

[7] Fed. Bureau of Investigation, Law Enforcement’s Use of Facial Recognition Technology, FBI, (last visited Mar. 8, 2025).

[8] Howard, Testimony Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary on Law Enforcement’s Use of Artificial Intelligence (Jan. 24, 2024).

[9] How Policing Agencies Use Artificial Intelligence, supra note i.

[10] Vikash Kumar Singh, Kalpana Sharma & Samarendra Nath Sur, A Survey on Preprocessing and Classification Techniques for Acoustic Scene, 229 Expert Sys. with Applications 120520 (2023).

[11] Id.

[12] Paul Reedy, Interpol Review of Digital Evidence for 2019–2022, 6 Forensic Sci. Int. Synergy 100313 (2023).

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Nat’l Acads., Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Work, supra note iii.

[16] Reedy, INTERPOL Review of Digital Evidence, supra note viii.

[17] Jenna McLaughlin, U.S. Police Chiefs Discuss Artificial Intelligence, GOV’T TECH. (Aug. 10, 2023).

[18] Reedy, INTERPOL Review of Digital Evidence, supra note viii.

[19] SmartDev, AI Use Cases in Law Enforcement, SMARTDEV, (last visited Mar. 8, 2025).

[20] Sarthak Joshi, Understanding Data Drift: A Comprehensive Guide with Examples, MEDIUM (July 20, 2023).

[21] McLaughlin, Police Chiefs Discuss Artificial Intelligence, supra note xiii.

[22] Sarah Brayne, The Criminal Law and Law Enforcement Implications of Big Data, 64 AM. CRIM. L. REV. 1301 (2017),.

[23] Id.

[24] SmartDev, AI Use Cases in Law Enforcement, supra note xv.

[25] Id.

[26] Univ. of Tex. at Dall., The Future of Police Training: SURVIVR Uses Virtual Reality to Prep Officers for the Real World, UTD (Apr. 18, 2023).

[27] Id.

28 Munich Re, How AI Is Evolving in U.S. Law Enforcement and Public Entity Underwriting.

The post Law Enforcement and Artificial Intelligence: Justice at the Front Door appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #93In this episode, Justice Speaks turns its focus to the national infrastructure supporting treatment courts across the United States. The podcast features Dr. Kristen DeVall, Professor of Sociology and Criminology at University of North Carolina Wilmington and Co Director of the National Treatment Court Resource Center (NTCRC). Dr. DeVall discusses the Center’s role in connecting research, data, and practice to strengthen treatment courts nationwide and reflects on its evolution from a drug court focused initiative into a comprehensive resource for all treatment courts. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

About Dr. Kristen DeVall and the National Treatment Court Resource CenterDr. Kristen DeVallThe interview begins with Dr. DeVall’s professional background and her early engagement with treatment courts, including formative evaluation and partnership work in Michigan and North Carolina. She describes how hands on collaboration with courts shaped her academic focus and reinforced the importance of grounding treatment court policy in empirical evidence and practical experience. She also reflects on her early work with Judge William Schma, noting that the experience provided a practical foundation for understanding how treatment court principles operate in real courtrooms.

Dr. DeVall then outlines the history and mission of the NTCRC, which was established in 2009 with funding from the Bureau of Justice Assistance. She explains that the Center was designed as a virtual hub for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers, providing accessible tools that courts can use to improve operations, communicate their value, and remain aligned with evidence-based practices.

Tools That Translate Treatment Court Data Into PracticeThe conversation turns to the Center’s core resources, including its interactive national treatment court map, role specific guidance for court team members, and marketing and communication tools designed to help courts explain their work to stakeholders and the public. Dr. DeVall also discusses the Center’s grant related resources, noting that while the NTCRC does not write grants directly, it plays a critical role in building capacity through workshops, webinars, and guidance offered in collaboration with national partners.

The discussion then focuses on the Center’s publications, particularly the biennial Painting the Current Picture survey and the annual national treatment court count. Dr. DeVall explains how these data products provide a reliable snapshot of treatment court growth, funding patterns, program design, and participant demographics, and why consistent treatment court data collection has positioned these courts as leaders in data driven justice innovation.

Sustaining Treatment Courts Through Reliable Data and CollaborationShe also highlights the Center’s broader contributions to the field, including peer reviewed publications, monographs addressing trauma and connection, and its podcast Justice to Healing. Dr. DeVall emphasizes the importance of collaboration through the national training and technical assistance ecosystem, including partnerships with organizations such as All Rise, and The Center for Justice Innovation and reflects on the challenge of balancing expanding demand with limited time and resources.

Dr. DeVall then explains that systematic treatment court data collection is essential not only for program evaluation, but for credibility, sustainability, and continuous improvement. She notes that treatment courts were among the first court models to embrace routine data reporting, using it to inform decision making, demonstrate outcomes to funders, and identify disparities or gaps in service. The conversation underscores that reliable data allows courts to move beyond anecdote, supports transparency, and strengthens the case for evidence-based policy at the local, state, and national levels.

Justice Speaks thanks Dr. DeVall for sharing her insights on the research, data, and collaboration shaping the future of treatment courts, and thanks Reconnect for sponsoring this episode.

The post Treatment Court Data and National Infrastructure with Dr. DeVall appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 2 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*[1]

The term artificial intelligence (AI) is something of an oxymoron. This technology is not intelligent, it is software following rules written by people, and there is nothing artificial about how it work. The term simply refers to computer programs designed to handle tasks that would otherwise be done by people. They do not think or understand. They follow instructions, look for patterns, apply rules, and produce results based on data and programming created by humans.

These tools work in different ways. Some follow fixed rules. Others look at past data to make predictions. Some sort or label images, video, or sound. Others manage schedules, assign resources, or generate text by guessing which words usually come next. Many systems combine several of these functions into a single platform.

No matter the form, these systems operate through automation and pattern matching. They do not have judgment, intent, or awareness. They do not decide what is true, fair, or lawful on their own. Any impact they have comes from how they are built, the data they rely on, where they are used, and how much weight people give to their outputs.

Different systems do very different things. To understand how AI systems in the criminal justice system actually affect the system, it is necessary to look at the specific types of systems in use and the roles each one plays.

1. Rule-Based SystemsRule-based systems are best understood as standard computer programs, not AI learning systems.[2] They follow instructions written by people and carry out specific actions when set conditions are met.

These systems do not learn from experience or change over time. They do exactly what they are programmed to do, and their impact depends entirely on the choices made by the people who wrote the rules.

Where Rule-Based Systems Are Used in Criminal JusticeThey are commonly used in diversion and treatment eligibility screening, statutory compliance checks, sentencing calculation tools, probation condition enforcement, and threshold determinations tied to mandatory minimum requirements.

Common Examples of Rule-Based SystemA diversion eligibility tool that excludes individuals with specified prior convictions. A probation system that records a violation when a required appointment is missed. A sentencing calculator that applies statutory ranges based on offense level and criminal history.

1. Statistical Learning SystemsIn the criminal justice system, these tools are often called risk assessment or prediction tools.[3] They are usually described as aids to decision-making, not as ordinary computer programs making decisions on their own.

These tools look at what happened in past cases and use those patterns to make guesses about new ones. They do not judge a person’s unique situation or circumstances. Instead, they compare a person to groups of people from earlier cases and estimate how likely certain outcomes might be.

The results are typically shown as a score, a category, or a percentage, based on the data and assumptions built into the system.

Risk Assessment and Prediction ToolsThey are widely used in pretrial risk assessment instruments, probation and parole supervision tools, recidivism prediction models, violation forecasting systems, and supervision planning tools.

Where Statistical Learning Systems Are UsedA pretrial assessment tool that estimates the likelihood of failure to appear. A probation model that predicts the risk of technical violations. A parole forecasting system used to estimate return to custody rates for planning purposes.

1. Predictive Scores and Risk IndicatorsPredictive scores and risk indicators are simply the results produced by these systems. [4] They are not separate tools. They exist to turn complex calculations into information that is easy for people to read and act on.

These results usually appear as numbers, labels, colors, or alerts. They summarize likelihoods without showing how those estimates were reached. Although, the scores are really estimates, their simplicity often leads them to be treated as conclusive.[5]

Where they are used in the Criminal Justice SystemThey appear in pretrial detention and release recommendations, bond determinations, supervision level assignments, child welfare risk flags, probation violation alerts, and prioritization tools used by courts and supervision agencies.

Where Predictive Scores Appear in PracticeA numerical risk score displayed on a pretrial report. A color-coded supervision level assigned at intake. A flag generated when a person reaches a predefined threshold such as repeated missed contacts.

1. Visual Analysis SystemsVisual analysis systems work with images and video.[6] They look for visual features and patterns, not words or reasoning.

These systems do not understand what they see. They simply sort and label images based on what they were trained to recognize.

Image and Video Processing in Criminal JusticeThey are used in body worn camera review, video evidence analysis, license plate readers, facial recognition systems, document scanning, jail security monitoring, and surveillance review.

Common Uses A system that scans body camera footage to locate segments involving use of force. License plate readers that log vehicle movements. Facial recognition used to search photo databases. Automated document scanners that classify and route evidence files.

1. Audio and Speech ProcessingAudio and speech systems work with sound. [7] Some turn spoken words into text. Others try to identify voices or flag certain types of sounds. They process audio signals, not meaning.

These systems can have trouble with accents, background noise, people talking over one another, or low-quality recordings.

Where they are used in the Criminal Justice SystemThey are used in court transcription services, jail and probation call monitoring, voice recognition tools, automated report generation, and gunshot detection systems.

ExamplesAutomated transcription services used for hearings. Jail call monitoring systems that flag keywords. Gunshot detection networks used by law enforcement. Voice recognition systems used for call authentication.

1. Optimization ToolsIn the criminal justice system, optimization tools are usually used to manage schedules, caseloads, and resources.[8] They are meant to help the system run smoothly, not to make policy decisions or judgments about people.

Like rule-based programs, these tools follow rules set by humans. The difference is how the rules are used. Rule-based programs produce fixed outcomes when certain conditions are met. Optimization tools use rules as limits, then weigh multiple needs, such as time, staff, and capacity, to decide when and how work gets done. Their goal is efficiency and coordination, not enforcement.

These tools do not measure risk or predict individual behavior. Instead, they influence how cases and resources move through the system.

Managing Schedules, Caseloads, and ResourcesThey are used in court scheduling and docket management, jail population management, staffing allocation, probation caseload distribution, transportation logistics, and supervision planning.

Common UsesA court scheduling system that balances courtroom availability, judge calendars, and statutory deadlines. A jail population management tool that allocates bed space across facilities. A probation system that assigns caseloads based on officer capacity and workload limits.

1. Adaptive Learning SystemsAdaptive systems change how they operate over time based on feedback.[9] Instead of following fixed rules or staying the same, they adjust in response to what happens.

This ability to change can improve results, but it also makes the system’s behavior harder to understand or explain at any given moment.

Where they are used in the Criminal Justice SystemThey appear in traffic control systems connected to law enforcement activity, monitoring technologies, and emerging public safety infrastructure.

ExamplesTraffic signal systems that adjust timing based on incident patterns. Monitoring technologies that adjust alert thresholds based on prior responses.

1. Large Language ModelsLarge language models produce text by recognizing patterns in how words are usually arranged and guessing what comes next.[10] They do not observe real-world events, check facts, or weigh evidence.

As a result, they can generate writing that sounds confident and convincing even when it is inaccurate or untrue.

Where they are used in the Criminal Justice SystemIn criminal justice settings, they are used to draft reports, summarize case files, assist with discovery review, prepare training materials, and support administrative writing. They are also used for legal case research, including summarizing opinions, suggesting precedent, and drafting research memoranda.

Known Risks in Legal Research and DraftingWhen used for legal research, large language models do not check whether a case actually exists, accurately describe what a court decided, or determine whether a decision is still valid law.

This creates a known risk that the system will produce summaries or citations that sound authoritative but are wrong, or entirely made up.

ExamplesCase summaries, draft probation reports, discovery summaries, and research memos suggesting case law

1. Hybrid SystemsWhen these tools are used together, they form what is often called a combined or hybrid system.[11] This is usually what people have in mind when they talk about “AI.” Not because the system is intelligent, but because several automated tools are linked together in a way that looks coordinated and goal-directed.

A combined system may bring together fixed rules, pattern-based predictions, risk scores, scheduling tools, and sometimes text generation. Within one platform, it might screen cases, estimate likelihoods, display scores, manage timing or priorities, and produce written summaries.

On their own, each of these parts is limited and mechanical. When linked together, they can give the appearance of decision-making. What looks like a single judgment is often the result of multiple automated steps working in sequence.

Where they are used in the Criminal Justice SystemThese systems are used in integrated case management platforms, supervision and electronic monitoring systems, evidence review platforms, and vendor tools that support multiple criminal justice functions.

Examples Supervision platforms that enforce conditions, estimate risk, schedule check ins, and generate reports; electronic monitoring systems that apply violation rules, escalate alerts, and summarize compliance data; and case management systems that route cases, flag priorities, and produce summaries for judges and court staff.

Conclusion – Hardwiring ClarityAI systems in the criminal justice system is not a single tool that thinks. It is a collection of systems that, particularly when combined, perform very different functions and shape justice processes in very different ways.

[1] This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar, editing, and footnote support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

[2] George Lawton, How to Choose Between a Rules-Based vs. Machine Learning System, TechTarget (Aug. 31, 2022).

[3] John Monahan & Jennifer L. Skeem, Risk Assessment in Criminal Sentencing, 12 Annual Rev. Clinical Psychol. 489 (2016).

[4] Richard Berk, Machine Learning Risk Assessments in Criminal Justice Settings, 19 Criminology & Pub. Pol’y 375, 378–80 (2020).

[5] Partnership on AI, Report on Algorithmic Risk Assessment Tools in the U.S. Criminal Justice System (2021).

[6] BM Corp., What Is Computer Vision?, IBM (last visited Mar. 8, 2025).

[7] IBM Corp., What Is Speech Recognition?**, IBM (last visited Mar. 8, 2025).

[8] Pramit Das, Moulinath Banerjee & Yuekai Sun, Optimal Intervention for Self-Triggering Spatial Networks with Application to Urban Crime Analytics (Dep’t of Stat., Univ. of Mich. 2025).

[9] Acceldata, What Is Adaptive AI? A Complete Guide to Self-Learning Systems, Acceldata Blog (last visited Mar. 8, 2025), https://www.acceldata.io/blog/what-is-adaptive-ai-a-complete-guide-to-self-learning-systems.

[10] IBM Corp., What Are Large Language Models?, IBM (last visited Mar. 8, 2025), https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/large-language-models

[11] Stuart Russell & Peter Norvig, Artificial Intelligence: A Modern Approach, 55–58 (4th ed. 2021).

The post AI Describes Many Technologies and None of Them Are Intelligent appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article is part of the Hardwiring Justice series on Artificial Intelligence and the Justice System. This is Part 1 in the series examining how AI is shaping policing, prosecution, defense practice, and the courts.*

IntroductionArtificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a future concern for the justice system. It is already embedded in daily operations, shaping how cases are screened, scheduled, prioritized, documented, and resolved. In many instances, these systems operate quietly in the background, influencing outcomes long before a judge exercises discretion or a hearing is held. Yet governance has not kept pace with deployment.

The Hardwiring Justice series begins from a simple premise: when tools are embedded into institutional systems, they shape behavior. AI does not need to replace judges or make final decisions to exercise power. It can influence what information is presented, which cases receive attention, how risk is framed, and what options appear available for decision. When those influences are opaque or unexamined, they raise fundamental questions about transparency, fairness, accountability, and the proper role of human judgment.

This series is not about resisting innovation, nor is it a technical manual. It is an institutional inquiry into where AI is already operating across the justice system, when AI-generated outputs become evidence subject to existing legal standards, and what governance responsibilities courts and justice leaders must assert now. The articles that follow are intended to provide practical clarity, grounded in law and institutional experience, for judges, practitioners, administrators, and policymakers confronting AI not as a theory, but as an operational reality.

At its core, the Hardwiring Justice series is about AI governance in the justice system, how courts and justice leaders assert transparency, accountability, and institutional control over tools that increasingly shape legal outcomes long before formal adjudication occurs.

AI Is Already Embedded in the Justice SystemHuman institutions operate according to the structures and constraints built into them. When AI is embedded in justice operations such as case intake, eligibility screening, docketing, risk assessment, drafting, or evidence triage, it begins shaping outcomes upstream. Much of this occurs well before a judge, prosecutor, or supervising authority exercises discretion. By the time AI becomes visible in the justice system, its influence is no longer emerging; it is already embedded in the record, the process, and the options presented for decision. The central challenge facing justice today is not whether AI will arrive. It already has. Rather, the question is whether the ongoing adoption of AI will be deliberate, transparent, and governed, or whether it will continue to enter justice systems piecemeal, driven by budget pressures, vendor incentives, and administrative convenience rather than oversight.

Much of the current public discussion about AI in the courts or the justice system is misdirected. It focuses on speculative futures, autonomous judges, sentient law enforcement systems, or machines “replacing” human decision-makers. That framing misses the real issue. The risk is not future autonomy. It is AI’s present invisibility.

Courts and justice agencies have used computerized technological systems for decades. Sentencing calculators, eligibility screens, compliance engines, case-management systems, and scheduling algorithms are not new. What has changed is scale, speed, and scope. Today’s systems are more interconnected, more data-driven, and more influential across the lifecycle of a case.

AI already plays a role in determining which cases are flagged for attention, which individuals are labeled high-risk, how evidence is sorted and summarized, how dockets are structured, and how information is presented to decision-makers. These systems may not issue final judgments, but they shape the terrain upon which judgment occurs.

Importantly, much of this technology does not arrive under the label “AI.” It appears as administrative software, decision-support tools, analytics platforms, or workflow enhancements. That semantic distance is part of the problem. When technology is framed as infrastructure rather than influence, it escapes scrutiny.

The Danger Is Not Automation. It Is OpacityAI does not need to “decide cases” to exercise power. When a system filters, ranks, flags, predicts, or prioritizes, it reallocates attention and resources. In a justice system where time, focus, and access matter, those reallocations have real consequences.

Opacity compounds the problem. These concerns align with the OECD1 Principles on Artificial Intelligence, which stress transparency, accountability, and human oversight when AI systems influence consequential decisions. Many AI-driven systems are proprietary, defended as trade secrets, or treated as too technical to question. Others are embedded so deeply in administrative processes that no one can say with confidence when or how they are influencing outcomes. Judges may encounter AI-shaped information without ever being told that AI played a role.

This is not a failure of law. Courts already possess tools that are well developed for evaluating reliability, bias, and fairness. It is a question of governance, of recognizing where technology is exercising influence and insisting on standards before it becomes entrenched.

Courts Are Encountering AI Too Late in the ProcessIn many jurisdictions, AI systems are adopted upstream, by administrative offices, executive agencies, or vendor-driven initiatives, long before judges are involved. By the time an issue reaches the courtroom, the system may already be operational, normalized, and defended as indispensable.

Judges then face a familiar dilemma: a tool is already in use, relied upon by staff, lawyers, or partner agencies, and difficult to unwind. Questions about transparency, error rates, or bias are framed as impractical or disruptive. Governance becomes reactive rather than proactive.

This sequencing matters. Once AI systems are entrenched, they are far harder to regulate, audit, or replace. Early choices about design, data sources, and deployment quietly hardwire policy decisions into code. Once embedded, that code limits the range of options available for future decision making.

AI Governance in the Justice System Must Precede EntrenchmentThe core claim of this series is simple: governance must come first. The justice system should not be asked to “catch up” to technology that has already reshaped their operations. Leadership is essential at the front end, when systems are selected, configured, and integrated.

This does not require judges, lawyers, police leadership and probation chiefs to become technologists. It requires the system to assert familiar institutional values in a new context: transparency, accountability, reliability, and fairness. It means asking basic but essential questions:

• What role does this AI system play in decision-making?
• What assumptions are embedded in its design?
• How is accuracy measured, and how are errors addressed?
• Who is accountable when the system fails?
• How can its influence be disclosed and challenged?

These are not new questions. They are the same questions institutions throughout the justice system have always asked of evidence, procedures, and institutional practices. AI does not require new principles. It requires applying existing ones with clarity and resolve.

Hardwiring Justice Is a ChoiceEvery justice system is already wired. The question is whether it will be wired intentionally or by default. If courts do not set expectations for transparency, verification, and accountability, those gaps will be filled by vendors, administrators, and market pressures.

Hardwiring justice means recognizing that technology is not neutral. It shapes behavior, incentives, and outcomes. When AI systems are embedded without governance, they risk becoming invisible adjudicators; powerful, unaccountable, and difficult to dislodge.

This blog series will examine where AI is already operating in the justice system, when it becomes evidence subject to traditional admissibility standards, how opacity undermines fairness, and what concrete governance tools courts can deploy now. The goal is not to slow innovation, but to ensure that innovation serves justice rather than quietly redefining it.

The future of the justice system cannot be decided by algorithms. Justice institutions must govern the tools they use, rather than be governed by them.

• This article was edited with the assistance of AI in the form of a large language model. It was used solely for grammar and editing support. All substantive content and conclusions reflect human authorship.

1 OECD is the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

The post Hardwiring Justice: Governing AI Before It Governs the Justice System appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #92In this episode, Justice Speaks turns its focus to the national landscape of court leadership in the United States. The podcast features Justice Elizabeth Clement, President of the National Center for State Courts, who reflects on her service as Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and discusses how her new role as President of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) positions her to help state courts navigate rapid technological, social, and institutional change. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

About Justice Elizabeth ClementJustice Elizabeth Clement The interview begins with a discussion of her background and early interest in civics and government. Justice Clement recalls that her fascination with public service began long before law school, shaped by her studies and by her work in the Michigan Senate after graduating from college. Those early experiences introduced her to the ways in which law and policy intersect and influenced her decision to pursue a legal education. She describes how her introduction to family law during law school revealed an area of practice that allowed her to work directly with people at vulnerable moments in their lives. She practiced family law for five years and found the work meaningful because it required both legal skill and a deep sense of responsibility to the families she served.

Her career shifted when she accepted policy leadership roles in the Michigan Senate and later within the governor’s office. These positions expanded her understanding of statewide systems and governance, and they prepared her for senior leadership in the judiciary. Justice Clement explains that these experiences laid the groundwork for her appointment to the Michigan Supreme Court. She served first as a justice and was later selected by her colleagues to serve as Chief Justice.

Judicial Independence and the Michigan CourtsJustice Clement describes the weight of serving in a judicial role that demands impartiality even when decisions may be unpopular. One of the defining moments of her judicial career came during a redistricting case that drew significant political attention. Her decision, grounded firmly in the law, resulted in her receiving the American Judges Association’s Harold Froehlich Judicial Courage Award. She notes that the case brought pressure from outside interests and personal threats during her campaign, yet she remained committed to ensuring that political influence did not shape judicial outcomes. She highlights the ongoing challenges facing state judges across the country and reinforced the essential role of judicial independence in maintaining public confidence in the courts.

The conversation then turns to her transition from the bench. Justice Clement explains that although she valued her work as Chief Justice, she recognized that her professional interests were moving toward the administrative and systemic aspects of judicial leadership. She believed that the Court would benefit from fresh energy and new perspectives, and she saw an opportunity to contribute more broadly to the justice system. This led to her decision to apply for and accept the role of President of the National Center for State Courts (NCSC).

Judicial Independence and the NCSCJustice Clement offers a detailed look at the demands of her new position. She describes a role that involves extensive collaboration with state court leaders, evaluation of national trends, and strategic planning to support courts facing unprecedented challenges. She identifies several emerging issues including judicial security concerns, the effects of political polarization, and widespread misunderstanding of the constitutional roles of the three branches of government. She places particular emphasis on the rise of artificial intelligence and the need for courts to prepare for its integration. She believes that courts must educate the public about AI, maintain transparency, and use new technology in ways that enhance rather than diminish public trust.

Judicial Independence for the YearsThroughout the interview, Justice Clement underlines the qualities she views as essential to judicial leadership. She emphasizes the importance of listening, ensuring procedural fairness, and fostering clear communication with the public. She hopes her legacy will reflect a steadfast defense of judicial independence and meaningful efforts to strengthen the public’s trust in the courts.

Justice Speaks thanks Justice Clement for sharing her insights and experiences on the podcast and thanks Reconnect for sponsoring this episode.

Check out below to watch the interviewThe post Judicial Independence and Court Leadership: A Conversation with Justice Elizabeth Clement appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By: Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.), David Wallace, Mack Jenkins, and Cynthia Herriott – Justice Speakers Institute, Inc.

As leaders of the Justice Speakers Institute, we have each served as practitioners in a treatment court. Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) presided over one of Michigan’s treatment courts. David Wallace, as Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Huron County, has represented the people in his county’s treatment court. Mack Jenkins, as Chief Probation Officer for San Diego County, oversaw the integration of probation and treatment services that made recovery achievable in his county’s treatment court. Cynthia Herriott, a law enforcement veteran and former Rochester Police Chief, worked as a police liaison to the treatment court. Collectively, our experiences have shown us what decades of research now confirm, that treatment courts work and that their success is grounded, not in ideology, but in measurable, human outcomes.

For more than three decades, treatment courts have quietly transformed how justice is done in America. The results speak for themselves, as one national study puts it, “Decades of evidence show that drug courts have a positive effect on recidivism.”[1] A recent review by the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that eight cost-benefit analyses reported savings of up to $47,852 per participant.[2] Taken together, this evidence demonstrates that when courts combine accountability with treatment, public safety improves, costs decline, and lives are rebuilt.

As leaders of the Justice Speakers Institute, we’ve seen these results firsthand. Together, we’ve trained judges, probation officers, prosecutors, defense counsel, and treatment professionals around the world. In doing so, we have witnessed how treatment courts operate across the United States, and witnessed a justice model that is evidence-based, data-driven, and grounded in both accountability and recovery.

And yet, despite this track record, much of the national conversation tries to paint a different picture. To read non-practitioner commentary, you might think treatment courts are a failed experiment. From one side, critics accuse them of being coercive and punitive. From the other, they’re condemned as permissive and soft on crime. But the ideological critics see it differently.

The fiercest critics of treatment courts share one trait: they’ve never worked in one.The View from the SidelinesThe fiercest critics of treatment courts share one trait: they’ve never worked in one.

On the progressive or academic left, scholars such as Kerwin Kaye, Evelyn Lia Malavé, and Rebecca Tiger, view treatment courts as extensions of the carceral state; systems that disguise punishment as therapy. Their argument is built around theory, not practice. Courts, they claim, force participants into scripted narratives of substance dependency and redemption that serve the state’s interest in control rather than the individual’s need for autonomy.

These critiques are based in academic sociology, which relies on field observation and selective interviews, not operational experience. Few of these writers have ever managed a docket, reviewed a pre-court staffing report, or struggled to find a residential bed for a participant detoxing without insurance. The practical realities, the impossible budgets, the shortages of clinicians, the human chaos of relapse and recovery, are missing from their analysis.

On the conservative right, the attack sounds different but comes from the same distance. Commentators like Heather Mac Donald and Charles Fain Lehmad and David Muhlhausen describe treatment courts as soft justice, programs that replace punishment with social work. Drawing on two-decade-old statistics, they claim that drug courts barely outperform probation and waste taxpayer money. But they, like their progressive counterparts, have never served as a judge, probation officer, or treatment provider. Their arguments appear to rest on one particular philosophy: that the court’s duty is to punish, not to rehabilitate.

The result is an odd symmetry. Both sides either minimize or outright reject the recidivism data that demonstrate treatment courts work. Claiming moral clarity, both use the same small pool of dated data, and neither has firsthand experience in how these courts function day to day.

Ideology vs. ExperienceThe left and right critiques start from opposing moral premises but end up making the same mistake, they replace evidence with opinion.

Progressive academics see treatment courts as too punitive. Conservatives see them as too permissive. Practitioners know they’re both wrong. The best courts are neither. They are structured accountability programs that link justice supervision with behavioral health care, built on decades of research showing that treatment, sanctions, and incentives, applied together, reduce recidivism and save lives.

When critics on either end talk about “coercion,” they often ignore how choice actually operates in courtrooms. Participants typically have a choice about entering a treatment court program as an alternative to jail. They sign contracts, receive due process, and work with multidisciplinary teams that review progress weekly. No one in the field pretends the system is perfect, access to medication, transportation, and housing remain major obstacles, but the caricature of treatment courts as authoritarian or indulgent simply doesn’t reflect actuality.

The Real EvidenceEmpirical research tells a quieter, more reality-based story than the ideologues do.

• National research findings are supported by studies showing that drug court participants have significantly lower re-arrest rates compared to non-participants, with the difference sometimes as high as 50–85% in the best-performing courts.[3]
• For every $1 invested in drug courts yields between $2 to $4 in direct taxpayer savings, with broader social benefits sometimes reaching $27 per dollar spent.[4]
• Follow-up evaluations demonstrate that participant outcomes improve when courts adhere to best-practice standards, timely assessment, evidence-based treatment, judicial interaction, and data tracking.[5]

Those aren’t theoretical constructs; they’re measurable results. The reason outcomes vary isn’t ideology, it’s fidelity to the treatment court model. Courts that drift away from evidence-based practices lose effectiveness; courts that stay disciplined work. That’s not politics; it’s operational reality.

What Practitioners SeeTalk to any judge running a treatment court and the story you’ll hear is pragmatic, not ideological. They’ll tell you about participants on their fifth sanction but still shows up because this is the first time anyone’s believed in them. They’ll tell you about the probation officer who drives a client to detox at 2 a.m., or the coordinator who finds a last-minute housing slot to keep someone from losing custody.

Practitioners aren’t debating Kerwin Kaye or Heather Mac Donald; they’re balancing caseloads, budgets, and human crises. They operate in the messy space between compassion and accountability, where relapse isn’t a moral failure but a clinical event, and where jail can be both sanction and safety.

That balance is what both ideological camps overlook. The left reduces treatment courts to systems of control. The right dismisses them as leniency. But inside the courtroom, justice and treatment aren’t opposites, they’re interdependent.

Listening to the People Who KnowThe loudest voices in this debate aren’t the people doing the work. Academic theorists and political commentators have shaped the public perception of treatment courts far more than the judges and teams who actually run them. That imbalance matters. When policy follows ideology instead of evidence, innovation suffers.

If critics truly want to understand treatment courts, they should work in one. They’ll see that while the system isn’t perfect, it’s real: human, evolving, and far more effective than the sound bites suggest.

Justice in PracticeTreatment courts were never designed to satisfy ideological purity tests. They were built to solve problems the traditional court system couldn’t, substance dependency, mental illness, and the revolving door of arrest and relapse.

As criminal justice professionals, we believe real justice reform has never belonged to one ideology or another, it belongs to those who do the work. The judges, probation officers, treatment providers, and law enforcement professionals who guide people toward recovery understand that accountability and compassion are not opposites but partners in public safety. As treatment courts continue to evolve, the conversation must remain grounded in evidence, not rhetoric, and led by those who see the results every day. We believe it’s time to let the practitioners who follow the data define what justice looks like in practice, and what its future should be.

[1] A second chance at life’: broadening views of success in drug courts

[2] Strengthening the Foundation: A Look at Past, Present, and Future Research for Adult Drug Courts

[3] Drug Courts: The Good, The Bad, and the Misunderstood

[4] National Drug Court Statistics: Trends, Outcomes, & Challenges

[5] Best Practices in Treatment Court Evaluation

The post A Decade of Experience: Why Real Justice Reform Requires Practitioners appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

As artificial intelligence (AI) systems become more autonomous, more deeply integrated into everyday activities, and increasingly capable of initiating actions without direct human supervision, a question has emerged: Do we need entirely new liability such as AI tort liability to govern harms caused by agentic[1] decision makers? A review of negligence law suggests we may not. The principles that U.S. courts have applied for more than a century to evaluate dangerous conduct, foreseeability, risk creation, and the allocation of responsibility are fully capable of addressing AI-related harms.

Negligence law centers on this inquiry: whether the actor owed a duty of care, breached that duty, and caused a foreseeable harm by failing to act as a reasonable person under similar circumstances. This framework emerged from cases involving human behavior or tangible products, appears to apply equally to negligence claims arising from AI.

Why AI Tort Liability Does Not Require a New Legal FrameworkEvery actor in the AI lifecycle; developers, deployers[2], and end users, may act in ways that can increase risk. Developers design systems they know will interact with the world, sometimes in unpredictable ways. Deployers integrate those systems into sensitive environments such as healthcare, finance, justice, transportation, or public safety. Users rely on outputs that may appear authoritative, even when the result is not always reliable. Each of these roles can easily be analyzed under traditional negligence principles: What did the actor know? What should they have known? What risks were reasonably foreseeable? What precautions could a prudent actor have taken?

AI technology does not relieve these actors of legal responsibility. If anything, it heightens the duty to anticipate how the system may behave when operating with partial independence.

Because developers control the architecture, training, and safety mechanisms of AI systems, they are often the parties most capable of preventing harm before it arises. Negligence law already recognizes this logic: the person with specialized knowledge or control over a risk-producing instrument must take care to prevent foreseeable misuse or malfunction.

AI developers therefore have a responsibility to design systems with appropriate constraints, test for known failure modes, evaluate foreseeable misuse, implement guardrails against dangerous outputs, and issue clear warnings about limitations and proper use. A developer who releases an autonomous system without adequate testing or without disclosing known risks may breach the traditional duty of reasonable care. The fact that the harmful action was carried out by the AI itself does not break the causal chain; the negligence lies in releasing a system whose behavior was reasonably foreseeable, even if not perfectly predictable.

Foreseeability and Risk Creation in Autonomous AI SystemsEntities that deploy AI systems, such as private-sector companies in healthcare, finance, retail, and transportation, as well as public institutions like courts, policing agencies, social-service departments, and regulatory bodies, also assume traditional negligence duties toward those affected by the technology.

Deployers can be negligent in several ways, including choosing an AI system that is unfit for the task, failing to train staff on its limitations, allowing the system to operate without adequate human oversight, relying on its outputs in high-stakes decisions despite known accuracy problems, or using AI in environments where a reasonable organization would anticipate harm. Each of these failures reflects a departure from the level of caution expected when integrating complex, risk-bearing technology into real-world operations.

Negligence does not require expertise in software engineering; it requires acting as a reasonably prudent organization would under similar circumstances. When deployers rely blindly on AI, ignore its limitations, or treat it as infallible, traditional negligence doctrine already provides a mechanism for accountability.

End users can also be negligent when they rely on AI in ways that exceed their competence or the system’s capabilities. If a user employs AI for a task requiring professional judgment, despite warnings or known limitations, the user may be responsible for resulting harm. This mirrors standard negligence principles: individuals must use tools appropriately and with awareness of the risks they reasonably should know.

Critically, negligence law allows fault to be shared among multiple actors. If a developer fails to warn, a deployer fails to supervise, and a user relies unreasonably on the system, each can bear a portion of responsibility. Traditional comparative-fault rules appear to be capable of allocating responsibility among developers, deployers, and users.

Some have already argued that AI’s complexity and opacity make it difficult to establish causation[3], but negligence law routinely addresses harms involving intricate causal chains, including chemical exposures, pharmaceutical side effects, mechanical failures, and industrial processes. Tort law does not require perfect explanations; it requires evidence that the harm was more likely than not caused by the defendant’s breach of duty.

If a developer created an unreasonably dangerous system, if a deployer ignored warnings, or if a user acted irresponsibly, causation can be established even if the internal mechanics of the AI decision are not fully understood. The inquiry focuses on human failures, not decoding every internal computational step.

Applying Negligence Law to AI Tort Liability Without ReinventionThe impulse to create new liability laws for AI tort liability often reflects anxiety about emerging technology rather than actual gaps in legal doctrine. Tort law has long demonstrated flexibility in responding to new forms of risk; it has absorbed automobiles, pharmaceuticals, industrial machinery, toxic substances, and consumer products of every kind. Autonomous systems are not so fundamentally different that they fall outside the common law tort framework. Rather, they introduce new factual scenarios, not new categories of legal responsibility.

Negligence principles already supply a duty to act reasonably, a standard for assessing necessary precautions, a mechanism for allocating responsibility, and a framework for evaluating causation even in complex environments. Rather than attempt to reinvent AI-specific liability principles from scratch, courts may choose to apply established doctrines while clarifying how reasonable care should operate in the context of emerging technologies.

Agentic AI introduces novel factual situations but perhaps not novel legal categories. Negligence law is fundamentally about conduct, risk, foreseeability, and responsibility, concepts that apply as readily to the deployment of autonomous systems as to any other potentially dangerous human creation. The path forward need not be a legal revolution. Rather it may simply be the application of longstanding tort principles to new forms of risk.

[1] Agentic AI is a type of artificial intelligence that runs independently to design, execute, and optimize workflows – allowing enterprises to more effectively make decisions and get work done. AI agents can make decisions, plan, and adapt to achieve predefined goals – with little human intervention or completely autonomously.

[2] An AI deployer is defined as any individual or entity that uses an AI system within their professional scope, excluding personal and non-professional activities

[3] From Optional to Obligatory: Why AI’s Statistical Superiority Doesn’t Dictate Tort Law Duties

The post AI Tort Liability: Does Negligence Law Still Apply? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Artificial intelligence is no longer a distant possibility for treatment courts. It is already influencing how participants seek help, how probation interacts with clients, how digital evidence is reviewed, and how courts assess risk and supervision. Treatment courts remain the justice system’s most human centered institutions, created to engage, support, and rehabilitate people whose underlying needs contribute to criminal behavior. That mission does not change because AI has arrived. Courts must establish clear boundaries now before the technology sets them on its own.

A growing concern reflects this moment. Participants are turning to AI chatbots as a substitute for therapy. Courts are beginning to see individuals who prefer AI because it feels nonjudgmental, always available, and less intimidating than a human clinician. Some courts are uncertain how to respond.

They should not be uncertain.

Participants with a history of suicidal ideation, self-harm, acute trauma, or other clinical instability cannot rely on AI in place of real treatment. Every credible clinical, medical, and judicial ethics body that has reviewed this issue reaches the same conclusion. AI may supplement support, but it cannot conduct risk assessments, deliver therapy, manage crises, or assume responsibility for clinical care. It cannot detect escalating distress, intervene in real time, coordinate safety plans, or replace the judgment and accountability of a licensed therapist.

Treatment courts are built on evidence-based practice. The evidence is clear. AI is not therapy.

The evidence is clear. AI is not therapy.Why This Matters for Treatment CourtsTreatment court participants are often clinically fragile. Many face co-occurring disorders, trauma histories, unstable medication regimens, or abrupt emotional shifts caused by stress or withdrawal. These courts depend on transparent communication, strong therapeutic alliances, and reliable human oversight. None of these elements exist when participants rely on AI systems that function as sophisticated text prediction tools.

This is where the danger lies. AI sounds therapeutic. It mimics empathy. It produces reassuring, counselor like responses. But it does not understand risk, nuance, or context, and it has no duty of care. It may offer comforting statements while missing signs of crisis. It may unintentionally give advice that undermines treatment, supports avoidance, or normalizes harmful behavior.

Courts have already seen what happens when new technologies enter justice environments without clear rules. As the Justice Speakers Institute’s AI series shows, AI tools such as risk assessments and video analysis systems can be useful when properly governed but dangerous when unregulated. The same principle applies here. When courts lack policies, technology fills the vacuum, often at the expense of safety, fairness, and clinical integrity.

AI as a Supplemental Tool, Not a SubstituteSome participants will continue to use AI because it feels supportive or helps them process emotions between sessions. Courts do not need to prohibit that use entirely. AI can play a limited, supplemental role, similar to journaling apps, wellness trackers, or psychoeducation tools, as long as that use is discussed with their therapist.

The core treatment must always be delivered by a licensed human clinician. That clinician must evaluate risk, track progress, assess suicidality, adjust treatment plans, and maintain responsibility for safety. Clinicians should also inform the treatment court team, in an appropriate manner, about a participant’s reliance on AI tools. Courts must be explicit. No AI system can assume the therapeutic role.

Treatment courts that have already addressed this issue classify AI as strictly secondary. Participants may use it, but never in place of therapy. Individuals with any history of suicidal ideation, self-harm, or severe mental illness should be strongly discouraged from using AI for emotional support. This is not resistance to technology. It is protection of the participant’s life.

This is not resistance to technology. It is protection of the participant’s life.What Treatment Courts Need to Do NowIf your treatment court does not have a written policy addressing participant use of AI, now is the time to develop one. A strong policy should include at least four components.

1. Human Provided Treatment Is Mandatory

AI tools cannot replace individual therapy, group therapy, trauma counseling, medication management, or crisis intervention.

2. Enhanced Protections for High-Risk Participants

Individuals with histories of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts, acute psychiatric symptoms, or active self-harm behaviors should not use AI for emotional support.

3. Transparent Communication With Participants

Courts should explain clearly, both verbally and in writing, that AI is not a clinician, cannot assess safety, cannot intervene, and cannot provide treatment. Participants must understand these limits.

4. Integration Into Supervision and Treatment Plans

Any AI use should be discussed during staffing, documented in treatment plans, and reviewed by clinicians. Increased reliance on AI should be treated as clinically relevant information, not simply as a personal preference.

AI Will Shape the Future of Treatment Courts, but It Must Not Replace Their CoreTreatment courts succeeded because they rejected the assembly line model of justice and built interventions grounded in behavioral science, compassion, and accountability. AI can support that mission by helping staff flag early warning signs, streamline administrative tasks, or expand access to educational materials. That is only possible when courts maintain strict oversight.

AI cannot build trust. It cannot provide empathy. It cannot treat trauma, addiction, or severe mental illness. That work requires people.

The strength of treatment courts has always been personal connection. Judges speak directly to participants. Teams coordinate care. Clinicians guide change. Participants learn that accountability and support can exist together. AI may enhance some parts of that process, but it can never replace it.

This is the moment for treatment courts to adopt clear, written policies that protect participants, preserve clinical standards, and ensure that technology serves the court and not the other way around.

Other Articles On AI in the CourtsIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine-Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

The post AI in Treatment Courts: Keeping Treatment Human appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #91This episode of Justice Speaks continues our series of conversations with leaders who are advancing community supervision across the nation. In this episode, we speak with Cobi Tittle, Director of the Tarrant County Community Supervision and Corrections Department in Texas and President of the National Association of Probation Executives (NAPE). This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

NAPE President Cobi TittleMs. Tittle shares how her journey through the ranks of community supervision shaped her belief that probation is not just about compliance, it’s about creating change. Overseeing one of the largest probation departments in Texas, she discusses the evolving mission of community supervision, the challenges of leading a complex organization, and the importance of data-driven leadership. The conversation also explores NAPE’s commitment to professional development for probation executives and the future of technology in enhancing supervision outcomes.

A Career Built on Service and InnovationIn the episode, Tittle describes her professional journey, from her early days in the field to her current leadership position, emphasizing how each step deepened her belief that probation is not merely a mechanism of control but a critical component of public safety. She distinguishes between pretrial supervision, where the focus is ensuring court compliance while maintaining liberty, and probation supervision, where rehabilitation and behavior change take center stage.

Ms. Tittle’s career in community supervision reflects a deep commitment to both accountability and rehabilitation. As the director of the third-largest probation department in Texas, she oversees a staff of more than 400 who manage roughly 22,000 individuals under supervision. Her department operates across both pretrial and post-conviction settings, balancing the presumption of innocence with the need for structured support and supervision once individuals are adjudicated.

Leadership Through NAPE: Building Capacity NationwideAs President of NAPE, Ms. Tittle has turned her attention to supporting probation executives nationwide through leadership development and peer collaboration. She explains that NAPE’s mission is to strengthen community supervision agencies by equipping their leaders with tools, data, and training to make evidence-based decisions.

Under her leadership, NAPE has expanded its partnership which underscores her broader philosophy: that effective leadership in probation begins with understanding people, both those being supervised and those doing the supervising.

She also discusses NAPE’s growing emphasis on data literacy, noting that sound leadership depends on the ability to interpret and act on empirical evidence. For her, leadership is not about hierarchy but about modeling integrity, empathy, and accountability.

The Evolving Role of Probation OfficersThroughout the discussion, Ms. Tittle returns repeatedly to the idea that probation officers are the justice system’s most direct link to community transformation. She frames their role as a delicate balance between enforcement and engagement, explaining that officers must hold individuals accountable while also motivating them to make lasting change.

She highlights the importance of hiring officers with both integrity and relatability, people who can build trust while maintaining professional boundaries. According to Tittle, one of the biggest challenges facing the field is over-supervision, placing excessive demands on low-risk individuals, which research shows can actually increase the likelihood of reoffending. Her department has invested heavily in risk-needs assessments and differential supervision models to ensure that resources are aligned with actual risk levels.

Technology and Advancing Community SupervisionLooking ahead, Ms. Tittle expresses cautious optimism about the role of technology in probation. She acknowledges that innovations like artificial intelligence and predictive analytics hold promise for improving efficiency and outcomes but warns that technology must always serve the human element; not replace it.

Probation, she argues, succeeds when officers understand the story behind the data. Tools can enhance decision-making, but meaningful change still happens through relationships. She envisions a future where technology supports officers’ ability to spend more time in the field, connecting with clients, families, and communities rather than sitting behind desks managing paperwork.

A Call for Reform and InvestmentThe conversation also explores broader issues of criminal justice reform, where she advocates returning to probation’s original purpose; rehabilitation. She calls for increased investment in community supervision as a cost-effective alternative to incarceration, pointing out that properly funded probation departments can reduce recidivism, strengthen families, and enhance community safety.

Finally, Ms. Tittle also reflects on her own trailblazing path as the first female deputy director and later director in her department’s history, noting the importance of representation and mentorship within leadership. Her success, she says, is not only personal but symbolic of a broader shift toward inclusivity and innovation within the justice system.

We wish to thank Ms. Cobi Tittle for joining us on Justice Speaks and for sharing her experience and perspective on the changing landscape of community supervision. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this episode of Justice Speaks.

The post Advancing Community Supervision: A Conversation with Cobi Tittle appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The removal of a Howard County judge in 2025 establish that judicial ethics are essential to the success of problem-solving courts. A former defense attorney who once practiced in the same drug and reentry courts he later oversaw, the judge became a one-man lesson in how quickly a court can lose its credibility when ethics fail. He turned programs designed for rehabilitation into arenas of humiliation, favoritism, and coercion. His misconduct represented a complete inversion of treatment court philosophy, where procedural fairness and accountability are based upon a foundation of judicial ethics.

A Pattern of Personal InvolvementThe judge blurred every ethical boundary expected of a member of the judiciary. He failed to recuse himself from at least eleven cases involving participants he had previously represented. He also engaged in ex parte contact with favored participants, personally transporting them, purchasing clothing, and arranging housing in a property owned by his wife. His actions undermined the very perception of fairness a problem-solving court depends upon. In these courts, where fairness and transparency underpin participant trust, such behavior is fatal to program integrity.

His conduct during review hearings was egregious. Witnesses reported that he demeaned, mocked, and intimidated participants. In one instance, he compared a domestic violence survivor’s trauma to “winning a Super Bowl,” claiming both produced similar “brain chemistry.” He reportedly told staff he planned to “mess with” participants to see how they would react, later boasting about his actions in open court. These remarks stripped participants of dignity and destroyed the therapeutic alliance that forms the foundation of every problem-solving court. When a judge treats suffering as spectacle, accountability becomes abuse.

This abuse and failure of judicial ethics were laid bare in his creation of a disciplinary tactic he called “Game or Jail.” Under this approach, participants could be punished collectively if one person was merely suspected of lying. He would threaten to jail the entire group—or even handcuff someone who had committed no violation—simply, he said, to “make a point.” This method of control subjected participants to public humiliation and violated the fundamental principles of due process and procedural fairness that problem-solving courts are designed to uphold.

His ethical lapses were not limited to his treatment of participants in the courtroom; they extended to his management of public resources. The judge sought unauthorized reimbursements for training expenses related to his work in the problem-solving courts. Though minor compared with his other violations, this misuse of public resources underscored the same disregard for integrity and professional boundaries that characterized his conduct on the bench.

The ResponseThe removal order was decisive: the judge was required to resign and was permanently barred from judicial service in any form. The Court’s opinion emphasized that his behavior—marked by intimidation, bias, and humiliation—violated the Code of Judicial Conduct and undermined confidence in the judiciary. The ruling reaffirmed that treatment courts cannot succeed when led by judges who fail to model the respect and restraint the law demands.

Judicial Ethics in Problems-Solving Courts: Lessons for the FieldProblem-solving courts are built on principles of procedural justice, collaboration, and evidence-based practice. The judge’s role is not simply to adjudicate but to lead a multidisciplinary team, setting the tone for fairness and trust. When that leader acts abusively, the entire structure collapses. Participants in recovery often enter court with deep mistrust of authority; a judge’s cruelty confirms their worst fears about the justice system. This misconduct didn’t just harm individuals—it damaged the credibility of therapeutic jurisprudence itself.

The case also highlights why ethical behavior must be treated as a core competency, not a personal trait. Training in ethics, professional boundaries, and trauma-informed communication is essential for all judges presiding over treatment and reentry courts. Oversight bodies must also ensure that complaints are investigated swiftly and transparently, especially when they involve vulnerable populations under court supervision.

Restoring TrustTreatment courts are among the justice system’s most effective tools for reducing recidivism and promoting recovery—but only when they are perceived as legitimate. The Howard County case is a stark reminder that a court’s legitimacy is built on an ethical foundation. The takeaway is simple: ethics sustain legitimacy. Without the authority that legitimacy bestows, the trust and teamwork at the core of treatment courts’ success will fail.

The post A Judicial Landmine: Judicial Ethics Failures in Problem-Solving Courts appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

AI has crossed the threshold from innovation to application, compelling courts to balance technological advancement with the enduring principles of justice. From chatbots that guide self-represented litigants to advanced analytics that help courts manage crowded dockets, AI has arrived in the courtroom.[1] Yet as this technology’s reach expands, so too must justice professionals’ understanding of how to govern it. For courts, the question is no longer whether AI should be used, but how it can be employed with transparently and fairly while upholding the rule of law.

Two distinct frameworks, one a comprehensive report[2] and the other an online resource,[3] offer an initial roadmap that balances innovation with accountability and efficiency with respect for justice. Together, they affirm an emerging consensus that AI can advance justice, but only when rooted in law, guided by ethical judgment, and implemented with openness and accountability.

The Promise and Peril of AI in JusticeCourts are beginning to cautiously adopt artificial intelligence. This caution reflects not only a divide between those who see AI as a tool for greater efficiency and those who fear it may undermine fairness and impartiality, but also a broader uncertainty among justice system professionals about how the technology actually works.[4]

AI encompasses both predictive and generative systems.[5] Predictive AI analyzes data to identify patterns and forecast outcomes, while generative AI creates text, images, and even legal arguments.[6] Both raise profound questions: How can courts ensure transparency when algorithms are opaque? What happens when bias embedded in data becomes bias in decisions?

Experts offer a consistent warning: AI is a tool not an end itself.[7] It is valuable only when it demonstrably improves justice. Every implementation should begin with a simple question: What problem does this solve? Without that clarity, courts risk automating inefficiency or amplifying inequality.[8]

Justice and FairnessTechnology in the courtroom must comply with the same justice principles that have long defined the rule of law. Most importantly, judges must retain ultimate responsibility for decisions. AI may assist with research or data management, but it cannot replace judicial judgment without eroding public confidence in judicial independence.[9]

Increasing reliance on AI also raises new forms of imbalance and power. A handful of nations and corporations dominate AI development, shaping not only the tools but the very definitions of knowledge and truth. Such concentration risks entrenching inequality and undermining national sovereignty and justice processes.[10] Courts, therefore, must develop transparent procurement practices and local oversight mechanisms to ensure technology does not dictate the contours of justice itself.

Principles and Practices for Responsible Use of AI in the CourtsAn emerging consensus supports an educated, incremental approach to AI adoption. Courts should begin with low-risk administrative applications—such as document summarization or docket management—before expanding to uses that directly affect litigants’ rights. Each implementation should serve a clearly defined purpose aligned with core judicial goals of efficiency, access to justice, and transparency.[11] In the evidentiary context, judges must also deepen their understanding of AI technologies to make informed and appropriate admissibility decisions.

Several key principles have emerged:

1. Judicial oversight must always be preserved. AI may assist in drafting or analysis, but judges remain accountable for accuracy and fairness.[12]
2. Written policies should govern use. Policies must define permissible applications, establish review procedures, and outline how misuse or error will be addressed.[13]
3. Transparency and disclosure are essential. Litigants and the public should be informed when AI is used and for what purpose.[14]
4. Risk classification should guide deployment. AI applications should be categorized as minimal, moderate, high, or unacceptable risk, based on their potential impact on legal rights. High-risk uses warrant heightened supervision or prohibition.[15]

These principles impose structure on what might otherwise become an unregulated legal landscape. They reflect the same balance of innovation and restraint that has long guided the evolution of judicial ethics.

Guardrails for the Judicial FutureAI should augment judicial judgement, not replace it. But responsible implementation requires clear guardrails, including:

• Ethical training for judges and staff to understand how AI works, its limitations, and how to detect bias or error.[16]
• Algorithmic transparency, ensuring courts can audit and explain the logic behind AI recommendations.[17]
• Public accountability, through published policies, community engagement, and oversight bodies that include technologists, ethicists, and judicial officers.[18]
• Impact assessments, including environmental and equity evaluations, to ensure that technology’s benefits do not come at the cost of fairness or sustainability.[19]

Judges must also remain vigilant about the appearance of fairness. If a decision relies on an AI system whose operation cannot be explained, public trust will inevitably erode, even if the outcome is legally correct. Procedural fairness, therefore, is not merely procedural; it is fundamental to judicial legitimacy.

AI in the Courts: The Path ForwardThe use of AI in courts is inevitable. The question is whether its growth will strengthen justice or compromise it. The way ahead is to embed AI within the judiciary’s ethical framework, ensuring its use remains anchored in transparency and accountability.

Courts that adopt AI responsibly can become models for the broader public sector, demonstrating that innovation and integrity are not opposites but partners. Those that move too quickly, without guardrails, risk transforming the promise of AI into a new source of inequity.

AI is a valuable tool only when it demonstrably advances justice. Its role is to assist with efficiency and analysis, not to replace ethical or judicial judgment.

Other Articles in this SeriesIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine-Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

[1] Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts., Chatbots and Virtual Assistants in Courts (2023), in Trends in State Courts 2023, at 10 (2023).

[2] Report of the Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, U.N. Doc. A/80/169, ¶ 1 (2025).

[3] Principles and Practices for AI Use in Courts, Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts. 3–5 (2024).

[4] Report on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, supra note 2.

[5] Tim Mucci, Generative AI vs. Predictive AI: What’s the Difference?, IBM (Aug. 12, 2024).

[6] Id.

[7] J. Clement, As AI Spreads, Experts Predict the Best and Worst Changes in Digital Life by 2035, Pew Research Ctr. (June 21, 2023).

[8] Report on Artificial Intelligence and the Courts, supra note 2.

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Principles and Practices for AI Use in Courts, supra note 3

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

INTERESTED IN AI AND THE COURTS?

Artificial Intelligence is transforming justice. But it also raises complex questions of ethics, fairness and accountability. At the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), we provide training, consulting, and expert presentations to help courts, policymakers, and legal professionals navigate these challenges responsibly.

Contact us today to learn how JSI can support your organization in understanding and implementing AI in the courts.

The post Part Six: Judging the Machine – Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

At the heart of the Justice Speakers Institute’s 10-year journey is a commitment to learning, leadership, and lasting impact. As JSI moves into its next decade, few voices better represent its growth and evolution than Cynthia Herriott, Vice President of Law Enforcement.

A former Police Chief, criminal justice strategist, and sought-after national trainer, Herriott brings more than 30 years of experience in law enforcement leadership to JSI. Her work bridges community engagement, officer wellness, procedural justice, and organizational leadership, creating meaningful strategies to strengthen trust and improve public safety.

“JSI doesn’t shy away from hard conversations. We bring people together to find solutions that are fair, practical, and rooted in real experience. That’s why the training we do changes systems—it respects the profession and the people we serve.”

— Cynthia Herriott

A Leader Who Understands the CommunityHerriott’s approach is shaped by her service in Rochester, New York, where she rose through the ranks from street patrol and later served as Interim Chief of Police. She led initiatives in community-oriented policing, violence reduction, and problem solving.

Her leadership is grounded in experience but driven by values: fairness, professionalism, consistency, and service.

Why JSI Matters to Law Enforcement Herriott joined JSI because she saw an organization not only educating professionals—but shaping the future of justice.

“JSI has a powerful mission. It builds bridges—between judges and officers, between policy and practice, between the justice system and the community. That’s rare.”

— Cynthia Herriott

Her work at JSI focuses on preparing law enforcement agencies to meet modern challenges:

• Retention and recruitment through strong leadership
• De-escalation and ethical decision-making
• Building community trust
• Reducing organizational risk and liability
• Developing effective supervision and accountability systems
• Officer wellness and resilience
• Training that supports professional pride and community partnership

Expanding Impact Into New Areas As JSI enters its second decade, Herriott is helping expand training beyond traditional justice topics. Under her leadership, JSI is now growing in:

• Strategic law enforcement leadership development
• Community violence prevention training
• Police–community trust restoration models
• Leadership in crisis management
• Emotional intelligence and wellness programs
• Women in law enforcement leadership development

“Public safety is more than reaction—it’s prevention, connection, and leadership. That’s where JSI is going, and I’m excited to be a part of it.”

A Voice of Progress and Purpose Herriott believes that change in public safety doesn’t come from politics—it comes from professional commitment and community partnership.

“We can train officers to be both guardians and problem solvers,” she said. “This profession has room for courage, compassion, and accountability all at once. And that’s what JSI teaches.”

— Cynthia Herriott

Global Growth and Future Direction Like Chief of Probation Mack Jenkins, Herriott sees JSI as a global force for real change. She has contributed to JSI training in North America, and the Caribbean, helping align law enforcement practices with ethical leadership and human dignity.

As JSI expands its international curriculum, Herriott emphasizes the balance between safety and trust.

“No matter where you go in the world, communities want the same thing—safety, respect, and fairness. Good policing is built on those values.”

ConclusionWith passion, professionalism, and purpose, Cynthia Herriott is helping lead JSI into its next era of impact. Her work strengthens justice not just through policy—but through people. As JSI celebrates a decade of progress, leaders like Herriott are shaping a future where law enforcement is trusted, trained, and prepared for the challenges ahead.

The post A Decade of Progress: Advancing Public Safety Through Leadership, Trust, and Innovation appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

As the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) celebrates ten years of advancing evidence-based justice, I am reminded of how far JSI has come, and the opportunities that lie ahead. When I first joined JSI, working on the Virginia Veterans Treatment Docket curriculum project, I was drawn to its mission because it reflected the same principles that have guided my career: integrity, fairness, and the belief that the justice system could change lives. The work with JSI was also quite simply, fun.

After more than four decades in public service, including my time as Chief Probation Officer for San Diego County, I have learned that enhancing public safety requires a combination of accountability and effective interventions designed to address the behavioral health issues of the justice involved. The justice system, using a collaborative effort of the stakeholders and the community, can help people overcome their deficits and provide the support they need to succeed. That’s what effective community supervision is about; accountability balanced with treatment, and structure grounded in compassionate care.

JSI has always stood for those values. We do not just talk about justice as an idea; we work every day to make it practical, visible, and rooted in evidence. Our work shows up in courtrooms, probation departments, and treatment programs around the world where lives are being rebuilt.

Justice also is not an illusory concept; it is the product of a commitment to unalienable truth that all persons have a right to be treated fairly and have an opportunity to succeed. As JSI moves into its next decade, I am proud to be part of an organization that continues to ask the hard questions, challenge assumptions, and stay focused on what matters most—helping people succeed and helping communities thrive. And yes, it is still fun.

The post A Decade of Integrity: Advancing Community Supervision Through Evidence and Hope appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This fall, the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) proudly marks 10 years of service, leadership, and innovation in justice reform around the world. What began in 2015 as a vision shared by a few justice system leaders has grown into a globally respected training, consulting, and education organization serving judges, court professionals, and policymakers in more than a dozen countries.

Founded by Judge Peggy Fulton Hora (Ret.), David Wallace, and Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.), JSI was built on a simple truth: justice can be more effective, by being grounded in science and human dignity. Over the past decade, JSI has delivered hundreds of trainings, influenced state and national policies, produced the Science Bench Book for Judges along with groundbreaking position papers, and launched the Justice Speaks podcast, which has now reached listeners in over 90 countries.

Carrying Forward the Legacy of Judge Peggy Hora Judge Peggy Fulton Hora—a visionary in international judicial education and a pioneer of therapeutic jurisprudence—helped define JSI’s mission and character. Her decades of work promoting problem-solving courts and judicial excellence helped transform court systems worldwide.

Judge Peggy HoraHer commitment to advancing justice lives on through JSI’s work and the thousands of professionals she inspired. Though Judge Hora passed away in 2020, her leadership, integrity, and insistence on quality continue to guide our mission.

“Peggy believed fiercely in the power of courts to change lives—not just cases,” said Brian MacKenzie, JSI Co-President. “Her passion for education, evidence-based practice, and human dignity shaped everything JSI stands for. Her voice is still with us in every training, every conversation, every effort to improve justice systems.”

Global Training, Real World Impact In its first 10 years, JSI has expanded from a handful of speaking engagements to a trusted global resource in justice system training. JSI experts have delivered programs in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Australia, Italy, South Africa, the Netherlands, and more.

Our training programs and consulting address real courtroom challenges with practical, evidence-based solutions. Core focus areas include:

• Problem-solving courts and judicial leadership;
• Evidence-based practices in criminal justice;
• Substance use dependency and the science on how to respond to it, and MOUD implementation;
• Ethical decision-making and professional practice standards;
• AI, technology, and the future of courts;
• Community engagement and procedural fairness; and,
• Traffic Safety.

Advancing Evidence-Based Justice For JSI, education is not theory, it is best practices in action. Our team has trained thousands of court professionals, equipping them with research-based strategies that improve safety, accountability, and public trust.

“JSI has always believed that justice should be informed by facts, not assumptions,” said David Wallace, JSI Co-President. “From the science of substance dependency to risk assessment practices to AI governance in courts—we provide judges and professionals with the tools they need to make informed, humane decisions.”

Through position papers, research briefs, judicial education tools, and policy frameworks, JSI has influenced state and national conversations on justice reform. Notably, JSI co-developed the Science Bench Book for Judges in partnership with the National Judicial College, providing courts with essential guidance on evaluating scientific and expert evidence. JSI’s work has also helped expand access to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) in treatment courts, improve probation accountability tools, and strengthen judicial strategies for high-risk impaired driving cases, among many other efforts to advance evidence-based justice.

Justice Speaks: Giving Voice to Reform In 2022, JSI launched an updated Justice Speaks podcast, opening up meaningful conversations with national justice leaders, researchers, and policy-makers. Hosted by JSI, the podcast has now released more than 35 episodes in the new format, featuring judges, treatment court coordinators, international reform advocates, justice leaders, tribal court judges, and more.

Justice Speaks continues to elevate innovation in justice, sharing lessons from the field and amplifying courageous voices from around the world.

Looking Ahead: The Next 10 Years * Expanding global partnerships to share best practices and judicial leadership strategies; * Supporting systemic justice reform initiatives, including ongoing research such as JSI’s study of first appearances in Maine to improve procedural fairness and early court outcomes; * Advancing training in substance use dependency and MOUD, ensuring courts apply medical science to save lives; * Combating the overdose crisis with evidence-based court practices and treatment collaboration; * Leading the national conversation on artificial intelligence in courts, shaping policy and judicial readiness; * Promoting ethical technology use through guidance on digital evidence, automation bias, and judicial responsibility; * Growing the Justice Speaks podcast platform to elevate reform conversations and global collaboration; and, * Expanding justice education and judicial leadership initiatives worldwide, preparing courts for the evolving challenges of the next decade.

Join us for the Next Decade of ImpactTo everyone who has worked with us, learned with us, and shared our mission—thank you. Justice Speakers Institute was built by people who believe in better justice. That means you.

Let’s build the next decade of progress—together.

The post A Decade of Impact: Justice Speakers Institute Celebrates 10 Years of Advancing Justice Worldwide appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #90In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series on state specialty courts and the leaders who help guide their growth and effectiveness. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect and features Ms. Rachel Varela, the Deputy Therapeutic Court Program Coordinator for the Alaska Court System, who oversees thirteen therapeutic court programs statewide.

About Rachel VarelaMs. Varela brings a unique combination of clinical and administrative experience to her role. Trained as a chemical dependency counselor, she first entered the justice field in 2019 as a project coordinator for the Anchorage Family Treatment Court. Her skill and dedication quickly led to increasing responsibilities, culminating in her appointment as Deputy Therapeutic Court Program Coordinator in 2021. Today, she manages statewide operations, policies, and budgets for a diverse system of courts that includes family, veterans, tribal healing, DUI/drug, and mental health dockets.

Alaska’s Therapeutic CourtsMs. Varela described how Alaska’s therapeutic court system has grown from a handful of pilot programs into a coordinated network designed to improve access to treatment and rehabilitation. Her team provides administrative oversight, data collection, and program evaluation for all therapeutic courts, ensuring that each adheres to evidence-based practices and national standards. Alaska’s courts, she explained, operate within a unique geographic and cultural landscape, serving urban centers and remote rural areas alike. This requires constant innovation and flexibility to meet local needs while maintaining fidelity to best practices.

Training and professional development are central to Ms. Varela’s vision for Alaska’s courts. Working alongside her colleague Ms. Michelle Bartley, she is developing an annual, in-state conference dedicated to strengthening the skills of treatment court teams. The goal is to ensure every jurisdiction—from Anchorage to the smallest tribal community—has access to consistent, high-quality training. Ms. Varela and Ms. Bartley are also establishing a statewide steering committee, complete with specialized subcommittees for each court type, to enhance coordination and resource sharing.

To streamline participant entry into the system, they are designing a screening hub staffed with multiple intake professionals who can assess and refer individuals efficiently to the appropriate court program. Collaboration with AllRise will provide technical assistance to support these initiatives, further aligning Alaska’s therapeutic courts with national standards of excellence.

Funding Alaska’s Therapeutic CourtsFunding, as in many states, remains a central concern. Ms. Varela outlined Alaska’s hybrid funding model, which combines state appropriations, federal grants, and resources from the Alaska Mental Health Trust Authority. The Trust plays a vital role in supporting participants with serious mental illness and substance use disorders, ensuring that services remain available even in remote areas. Ms. Varela credited former leaders Ms. Michelle Bartley and Ms. Claire Waddup for laying the groundwork for the state’s current success through their years of leadership and advocacy.

Among Alaska’s legislative milestones, Ms. Varela highlighted a 2016 reform allowing felony DUI participants to obtain limited driver’s licenses after completing court-ordered treatment. This policy, she explained, has improved rehabilitation outcomes by helping participants return to work, maintain family stability, and fully reintegrate into their communities.

Despite these advances, Alaska faces persistent challenges. In some regions, particularly Juneau, housing shortages affect both participants and staff. Ms. Varela described creative solutions, including temporary use of RVs and other innovative housing options, to keep programs operational. She noted that such adaptability is a defining feature of Alaska’s justice professionals, who routinely find ways to make limited resources stretch across vast distances.

Technology is proving to be a key ally in that effort. Ms. Varela emphasized how telehealth services, virtual hearings, and remote collaboration tools have transformed access to justice across the state. Her office is also developing a statewide screening tool to improve data consistency, accuracy, and evaluation. These technological advancements, she noted, not only improve efficiency but also reduce barriers to care for participants living hundreds of miles from the nearest courthouse.

Conclusion Looking ahead, Ms. Varela envisions an Alaska therapeutic court system that is more integrated, data-driven, and accessible than ever before. With stronger infrastructure, enhanced training, and continued partnerships, she believes Alaska can build a model of justice that reflects both accountability and compassion.

We wish to thank Ms. Rachel Varela for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Advancing Therapeutic Courts Across Alaska with Ms. Rachel Varela appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

After decades in law enforcement, I’ve learned that not all people who come into contact with the criminal justice system are viewed the same way. Some are the people we fear: violent predators, serial offenders, and those whose crimes shake our communities to their core. Others are the people we’re mad at: the ones whose actions frustrate us, like nonviolent offenders battling substance dependency, poverty, or mental illness.

Understanding this difference — between those we fear and those we’re mad at — is one of the most important distinctions we can make if we want a more effective, fair, and compassionate justice system. Too often, we lump everyone together, reacting emotionally instead of strategically. When we do that, we waste resources, deepen inequities, and miss opportunities to prevent crime in the first place.

The Ones We FearLet’s start with the people we fear. These are the offenders who make headlines — serial killers, violent abusers, rapists, and those who commit acts so heinous that they leave a permanent mark on victims, families, and entire communities. These individuals represent the extreme end of criminal behavior, and our fear of them is both rational and justified.

When you’ve stood in a crime scene where life has been taken or sat with the family of a victim whose loved one was senselessly murdered, you understand why the public demands strong responses. Law enforcement officers dedicate their lives to finding and stopping these individuals because their behavior poses a genuine threat to safety. They are unpredictable, some are remorseless, and sometimes beyond rehabilitation.

Our response to this group should be firm, consistent, and focused on public safety. That means maintaining investigative resources, specialized training, and forensic tools needed to apprehend and prosecute violent offenders. It also means ensuring that those who are truly dangerous are securely confined to prevent further harm.

But here’s the key: the people we fear make up a smaller percentage of those who are arrested every year. In my years in law enforcement, I saw countless arrests. The majority did not involve truly violent, predatory individuals.

The Ones We’re Mad AtThen there are the people we’re mad at. These are the individuals whose crimes frustrate us — not because we fear them, but because their actions cause disorder, cost money, or offend our sense of responsibility. They might be arrested for petty theft, drug possession, trespassing, or repeated probation violations. They’re not “scary,” but they are annoying to the system.

Many of these individuals are battling deeper issues: substance dependency, untreated mental illness, homelessness, or generational poverty. Some grew up in environments where trauma was constant — and where survival meant making choices that eventually drew police attention. Others simply made mistakes that spiraled out of control.

When we’re mad at someone, our instinct is to punish — to “teach them a lesson.” But anger-driven policies rarely work. They often lead to what we call the “revolving door” of the criminal justice system. A person gets arrested for a minor offense, spends time in jail, loses their job or housing, and then returns to the same environment that led to their arrest in the first place.

This cycle doesn’t make communities safer. It simply shifts the problem from one part of society to another — from the streets to the jails, and back again.

How Fear and Anger Shape PolicyFear and anger are powerful emotions. Both are natural human responses, but they require different kinds of leadership.

When we respond to fear, often we tighten laws, increase penalties, and expand incarceration. When we respond to anger, our tendency is to push for “tough on crime” measures, even when those measures don’t align with the actual threat level. The result is a justice system that sometimes treats the “mad-at” people as harshly as the “afraid-of” ones.

The potential exists to end up with nonviolent offenders serving long sentences, or people with substance use disorders being incarcerated and not getting treatment even while in jail. It’s also how resources get stretched thin — officers spend time handling low-level offenses when they could be focusing on preventing and solving serious crimes.

A Smarter, More Balanced ApproachThe solution isn’t to go easy on crime — it’s to be smart about it. The goal of law enforcement should always be public safety, but that safety can’t come from fear or frustration alone. It has to come from understanding.

We should reserve our harshest penalties and most secure facilities for those who are truly dangerous — the ones we fear. For others, our approach should be different. That means investing in diversion programs, treatment courts, and reentry services that address root causes.

Drug treatment courts, for example, have shown tremendous success in reducing recidivism. Instead of punishing substance dependency, they help people overcome it. Mental health courts and crisis intervention teams do the same for those struggling with psychiatric issues. These are not “soft on crime” approaches — they’re strategic. They reduce future offenses, save taxpayer money, and free up police resources to focus on violent crime.

I’ve also seen the power of partnerships between law enforcement and community organizations. When police departments work with housing agencies, nonprofits, and faith-based groups, they can connect people to services that help them stabilize their lives. A person who has housing, treatment, and a job is far less likely to end up back in the system.

Changing How We See PeopleOne of the biggest challenges in law enforcement — and society in general — is learning to see people beyond their worst moments. When we see mugshots and crime statistics, it’s easy to forget that behind every arrest is a person with a story.

That doesn’t mean we excuse harmful behavior. Accountability is essential. But accountability can take many forms — it doesn’t always have to mean incarceration.

If someone is dangerous, our duty is to protect the public. But if someone is struggling, our duty is to help them find a way out of that struggle. The community is a big beneficiary. The justice system should be about both safety and restoration. We can protect our communities and help people change. Those goals are not mutually exclusive.

Moving Forward: From Emotion to EvidenceThe next step for policing and criminal justice reform is to shift from emotional reactions to evidence-based strategies. We need to ask hard questions, such as:

• Are we spending our resources on the people who pose the greatest threat?
• Are we criminalizing social problems that could be addressed more effectively outside the justice system?
• Are our policies making communities safer, or just busier?

The answers to these questions can guide a more balanced system — one that reserves fear for the truly dangerous and replaces anger with problem-solving for the rest.

ConclusionAs a former police chief, I know firsthand that every arrest involves choices — not just by the person being arrested, but by the system responding to them. We must choose whether to act out of fear, anger, or wisdom.

The ones we fear deserve swift and strong justice because they threaten lives. The ones we’re mad at deserve structured accountability that leads to rehabilitation. When we learn to tell the difference, we make better use of our officers, our courts, and our compassion.

In the end, true public safety isn’t achieved by punishing everyone the same way. It’s achieved by understanding who we fear, who we’re mad at, and how best to respond to each — with fairness, strategy, and humanity.

The post The Ones We Fear and the Ones We’re Mad At: A Policing Perspective on Justice Reform appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

As artificial intelligence (AI) transforms the justice system, AI in the courts is redefining how judges, attorneys, and litigants engage with the law. Around the world, courts are adopting new tools to improve efficiency, transparency, and access. Yet, these advances pose a critical challenge: ensuring that innovation enhances fairness without diminishing the human judgment that is the essence of justice.

A New Era: AI in the Courts and Judicial InnovationThe global justice community is moving steadily toward modernization. Courts throughout the world now rely on AI-powered transcription, document review, and scheduling systems. Some jurisdictions use AI-driven tools to assist in identifying case backlogs, predicting caseload trends, and matching defendants to diversion or treatment programs.[1]

By integrating AI, courts can reduce delays, manage data more effectively, and improve public accessibility. Routine administrative tasks once consuming hours of staff time can now be completed in seconds.[2] For judges, this can mean more time devoted to better decision making, the core of judicial work.

Yet technological progress is not without tension. Courts must ensure that efficiency never comes at the expense of fairness, and that data-driven tools do not overshadow human judgment[3] The central ethical question remains: how can AI assist judges without replacing their authority or compromising the legitimacy of their decisions?

Expanding Access to Justice Through TechnologyAI tools are transforming how individuals engage with the justice system These technologies now assist self-represented litigants by providing essential legal information, guiding them through complex procedures, clarifying filing requirements, and even helping to draft and complete court forms.[4] By automating routine guidance, these tools help bridge the gap for those who cannot afford legal counsel, reducing procedural errors and delays that often disadvantage unrepresented parties.

At the same time, Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platforms are transforming how routine cases, such as small claims, landlord-tenant disputes, and traffic violations, are handled.[5] Using technology to facilitate communication, negotiation, and mediation between parties, ODR systems allow disputes to be resolved entirely online, without requiring in-person court appearances.[6] This can result in a process that is more accessible, particularly for individuals in rural areas, those with mobility challenges, or those unable to take time away from work.[7]

For example, British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal[8], Singapore’s Community Justice[9] and Tribunals System, and China’s Internet Courts[10] allow litigants to file, mediate, and resolve cases digitally. These platforms rely on AI to assist clerks and mediators, match cases to appropriate procedures, and analyze resolution data to improve outcomes.

Such systems make justice more affordable and accessible for litigants. However, access must not be confused with equality. Digital tools can widen disparities for those without reliable internet access, digital literacy, or trust in technology. To ensure that justice remains truly accessible, courts must pair innovation with outreach, education, and safeguards that protect vulnerable populations.

AI in the Courts: Ethical and Regulatory ChallengesAs courts adopt AI, they also confront new ethical and regulatory responsibilities.[11] Transparency, accountability, and data privacy must remain non-negotiable. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) advises that judges and court administrators maintain “technology competence”, not only understanding what AI can do but also recognizing its limits and risks.[12]

Globally, governments are developing frameworks to ensure the ethical use of artificial intelligence in justice systems. The European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act classifies AI systems used in law enforcement and judicial contexts as “high risk,” mandating rigorous testing, transparency, and continuous human oversight.[13] Singapore’s Model AI Governance Framework emphasizes accountability and data protection while fostering innovation and responsible deployment[14]. Taken together, these initiatives—along with the efforts of the Council of Europe and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which have issued ethical guidelines highlighting proportionality, fairness, and human rights—reflect a growing international consensus that AI in the judiciary must be transparent, accountable, and firmly under human control.[15]

These developments reveal a shared understanding: the rule of law must guide technology, not the other way around. Courts that implement AI must do so with clear rules of transparency, auditing, and appeal. The ability to explain how an AI system reaches its conclusions is essential to preserving due process and public trust.

The rule of law must guide technology, not the other way aroundGlobal Trends and the Path ForwardAround the world, judicial leaders are recognizing that the future of courts depends on embedding this technology within a framework of fairness, ethics, and accessibility. The future court will likely be hybrid: digital in efficiency, human in judgement. Hearings may take place in virtual rooms, filings may be automated, and judgments may rely on AI-assisted research. Even as the integration of AI into the world’s justice systems evolves, its guiding principle must remain unchanged: technology should serve justice—never define it.

Other Articles in this SeriesIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine–Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

Citations[1] Christophe Dubois, From Case Law to Code: Evaluating AI’s Role in the Justice System, Montreal AI Ethics Institute(May 24, 2023).

[2] Conference of State Court Administrators, The Role of Artificial Intelligence in the Courts 3–5 (Nat’l Ctr. for State Cts. 2024).

[3] Hon. Brian MacKenzie (Ret.), AI in Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Ethics, and the Human Role, Justice Speakers Institute (Oct. 21, 2025).

[4] Maura R. Grossman, Paul W. Grimm & Cary Coglianese, How to Harness AI for Justice, Judicature, Vol. 108, No. 1 (2024).

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Colin Rule & Shannon Salter, The Online Justice Experience in British Columbia, Soc’y for Computers & Law (May 2019).

[9] Judiciary of the Republic of Singapore, Community Justice and Tribunals System (CJTS), Singapore Judiciary (n.d.).

[10] Jinting Deng & Mimi Zou, China’s E-Justice Revolution: Internet Courts and the Future of Administrative Justice, Judicature (Aug. 2021).

[11] Hon. Brian MacKenzie (Ret.), AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges, Justice Speakers Institute (Sept. 30, 2025).

[12] Conference of State Court Administrators, Supra Note 2

[13] European Commission, Regulatory Framework Proposal on Artificial Intelligence, Digital Strategy (Apr. 21, 2021).

[14] Personal Data Protection Commission, Model Artificial Intelligence Governance Framework, Version 2 (Gov’t of Sing. 2020).

[15] European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), European Ethical Charter on the Use of Artificial Intelligence in Judicial Systems and Their Environment (Council of Eur. 2018).

INTERESTED IN AI AND THE COURTS?

Artificial Intelligence is transforming justice. But it also raises complex questions of ethics, fairness and accountability. At the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), we provide training, consulting, and expert presentations to help courts, policymakers, and legal professionals navigate these challenges responsibly.

Contact us today to learn how JSI can support your organization in understanding and implementing AI in the courts.

The post Part Five: Courts of the Future – Innovation, Access, and Global Trends appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #89In this episode, Justice Speaks travels to London to explore how innovation is transforming the British justice system. The podcast features Phil Bowen, Director of the Centre for Justice Innovation (CJI)—an independent charitable organization dedicated to improving the effectiveness, fairness, and accessibility of justice throughout the United Kingdom.

About Phil BowenMr. Bowen begins by reflecting on his background in North London and his early career in public service. After studying history at St. Andrews University in Scotland, he entered the British Civil Service through the government’s fast-stream program, joining the Home Office. There, he contributed to criminal justice and counterterrorism policy in the years following the September 11 attacks and later served within the Ministry of Justice and the Prime Minister’s Delivery Unit.

A defining period in his career came with a yearlong secondment in New York City to the Center for Court Innovation, now the Center for Justice Innovation. During that time, he conducted research on the growth of problem-solving courts across the United States and worked as a resource coordinator in the Bronx Criminal Court. Observing first-hand how American problem-solving courts combined accountability, treatment, and community engagement, he says, deeply influenced his later work in British justice reform.

About the Centre for Justice InnovationUpon returning to London, Mr. Bowen helped establish the Centre for Justice Innovation, inspired by the New York model but designed specifically for the British context. Early funders, he explains, wanted a British-led and British-funded organization governed under UK law, while maintaining collaboration with its U.S. counterpart. Today, the Centre operates as an independent charity with more than twenty staff, supported by charitable foundations and selected government contracts.

Mr. Bowen describes the Centre’s mission as strengthening “the middle bit” of the justice system—the processes that connect policing, courts, and communities. Rather than focusing on enforcement or imprisonment, the Centre works to improve how justice institutions operate and interact. Its goal, he notes, is to bridge the gap between sound policy ideas and effective implementation, helping agencies apply evidence-based practices that make justice work better in daily life.

Key Focus Areas for the CentreOne major area of CJI’s work is out-of-court resolutions, which divert individuals accused of lower-level offenses away from formal prosecution. Mr. Bowen explains that these programs now account for a growing share of criminal justice outcomes in the United Kingdom. The Centre has helped create national standards for diversion and supports police and youth justice services in applying them consistently. Research confirms, he adds, that limiting formal system contact for low-risk individuals—particularly young people—reduces reoffending and improves long-term outcomes.

Another key focus is smarter sentencing, ensuring that imprisonment is used only when necessary and that community-based sanctions are credible and effective. Mr. Bowen highlights CJI’s research on criminal fines, noting that while fines are the most common sentence in the UK, many go unpaid. The Centre is studying whether nonpayment reflects inability or ineffective assessment of means and how courts can calibrate fines more fairly. He also discusses the expansion of Family Drug and Alcohol Courts and the development of problem-solving courts for women, which offer structured, judicially supervised alternatives to short-term custody.

CJI also advances procedural fairness—the principle that how justice is delivered matters as much as the outcome. Mr. Bowen observes that too many participants leave court unsure of what occurred or why. Promoting transparency, understanding, and respectful treatment, he argues, enhances both compliance and legitimacy. He further notes that remote hearings, now common since the pandemic, require new strategies to ensure fairness and dignity for all parties.

The discussion turns to the Common Ground Justice Project, a new initiative designed to move beyond polarized debates about being “tough” or “soft” on crime. Mr. Bowen describes it as an effort to identify shared priorities among the public and policymakers. Early findings show that most citizens value accountability and rehabilitation and support evidence-based approaches that promote safety and reduce reoffending.

Upcoming Challenges and Opportunities Looking ahead, Mr. Bowen identifies several challenges for reform: overcrowded prisons, limited community resources, and political rhetoric that favors punishment over effectiveness. He calls for a renewed evidence-based discussion of drug policy and greater attention to domestic and sexual abuse cases that require specialized courts and integrated social responses.

Despite these obstacles, Mr. Bowen points to significant progress. National standards for diversion have been adopted, family treatment courts expanded, and court-based advice services now help defendants access debt and housing support. These innovations, he notes, are increasingly cited in national reviews and government policy reports.

As the discussion concludes, Mr. Bowen reflects that meaningful reform seldom arises from sweeping legislation. It comes from consistent collaboration among practitioners, researchers, and policymakers who turn evidence into practice. The Centre for Justice Innovation, he affirms, will continue to serve as a bridge between research and reality—advancing justice through innovation, partnership, and fairness.

We thank Phil Bowen for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks.

To watch the interview, it is now on YouTube.The post The Centre for Justice Innovation: Building a Smarter and Fairer Justice System with Phil Bowen appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

On a website created to allow treatment court practitioner to pose questions and engage in discussion with other practitioners, a member of a treatment court recently posted her frustrations about a lack of accountability in her program. She described a series of negative and problematic behaviors displayed by participants. While the behaviors themselves, repeated violation conditions, falsifying pay stubs, missing or diluting drug tests, testing positive, missing probation meetings or court appearances, etc. are not atypical for a treatment court population, particularly if the program is targeting high risk and high need individuals, as treatment courts are instructed to do, but the reported responses to those behaviors, raises questions.

The treatment team member describes that in following what her team understands to be new standards and guidance, she questions whether she and her team are helping their clients create “….real change.” The writer states:

“[W]e are starting to consider not holding probation violation hearings because we’re told there isn’t going to be any loss of freedom for most of these behaviors per new training guidance, we don’t need to. Dishonesty is to be ignored because its seen as ‘expected in addiction’ and consequences are minimal: verbal warnings, praise for rescheduled appointments and drug tests crafts and essays for a sanction and occasional increased testing or alcohol monitoring…”

The writer never uses the term “harm reduction,” but the “minimal” consequences and responses to the negative behaviors displayed by her program’s population is consistent with what could be described as a harm reduction approach. [Read the full post below.]

One definition of harm reduction is: a public health strategy designed to reduce the negative consequences of substance use, including overdose. In justice settings, particularly treatment courts, this means helping individuals make progress toward recovery. A critical question for the discussion is whether harm reduction eliminates expectations, in particular expectations to comply with programs rules, notwithstanding an expectation to at least reduce, if not desist from ongoing substance use. What is harm reduction’s response to relapse, e.g., a new use after a period of sobriety? Does it tolerate dangerous or criminal behavior? If applied in treatment courts, harm reduction must mean responding to continued use, or use after a period of sobriety, and non-compliant behavior in ways that are clinically appropriate instead of reflexively punitive.

Harm Reduction and Accountability Accountability must still exist, purposeful accountability, based upon meaningful research, i.e., operant conditioning, towards a goal of behavior change and recovery. In other words, harm reduction must have guardrails.

Oregon’s Lesson: In 2020, Oregon voters passed Measure 110, decriminalizing possession of small amounts of narcotics. Its goals aligned with harm reduction principles: reduce incarceration for drug use, reinvest in treatment services, and treat addiction as a public health issue.

But the rollout exposed a critical flaw: decriminalization came without accountability mechanisms or a functioning treatment system.

• Police could write citations, but individuals were not required to seek treatment.
• The promised treatment infrastructure lagged behind implementation.
• Overdose deaths increased while engagement in treatment remained low.
• Communities lost confidence in the system.

By 2024, Oregon partially reversed the law, reintroducing criminal penalties while attempting to preserve treatment funding.

Oregon did not fail because harm reduction is necessarily flawed, it failed because harm reduction without structure may be akin to abandonment. Unlike Oregon’s broad policy experiment, treatment courts when applying best practices, including evidenced supported principles of behavior modification, contain the guardrails that make harm reduction effective. Purposeful accountability is integral in those guardrails. Treatment courts do not allow participants to disappear after a relapse; they use accountability to force treatment.

Legal leverage is often what brings individuals to treatment, especially those with severe substance use disorders. Harm reduction should not remove that leverage but instead should channel it toward recovery.

Legal leverage is often what brings individuals to treatmentAs the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) noted in 2021: “Coerced treatment can initiate recovery; harm reduction sustains it.” Put another way once an individual is in a structured program, incentives are four times as effective as sanctions. However, meaningful, impactful sanctions are part of the structure.

To avoid Oregon’s mistakes, harm reduction must include accountability safeguards. Treatment courts should:

• Maintain clear expectations and response matrices
• Employ collaborative case management practices
• Use best practices for incentives and sanctions following operant conditioning principles
• Provide immediate access to MOUD and treatment services
• Respond to continued use and relapse effectively
• Require frequent court review hearings
• Track outcomes and adjust plans individually

ConclusionIf employed, harm reduction should not be a retreat from accountability. Oregon’s experience reminds us of a simple truth: abandoning structure in addition to being ineffective, may also—as the lack of meaningful responses approach described in the email from the treatment court practitioner describes—be actually antithetical to the goals of recovery and prosocial behavior change. She closed her email by saying; “The same behaviors repeat every few weeks. I support a compassionate recover-oriented model but without meaningful accountability or structure, I am not sure we/re making a difference …. Because right now, it feels like we’re enabling more than we’re helping.”

Treatment courts should not enable harmful behaviors; they should change them. Incorporating harm reduction in the effort to facilitate that change with high risk and high need individuals requires practical guardrails that include compassionate support, and impactful accountability.

Full Message Discussed AboveThe post Harm Reduction Needs Guardrails: Balancing Compassion and Accountability appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #88In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series on state specialty courts and the leaders who help guide their growth and effectiveness. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect and features Ms. Rachael Mark, a Treatment Court Analyst with the Oregon Judicial Department (OJD), who supports more than seventy treatment courts across the state.

About Rachael MarkMs. Mark has dedicated more than two decades to advancing problem-solving courts and improving justice outcomes in Oregon. After earning degrees in Spanish and criminal justice, she began her career with the Washington County Juvenile Drug Treatment Court as a case aide. That position introduced her to the collaborative model of treatment courts and the importance of combining accountability with compassion. Over sixteen years, she advanced to program coordinator, gaining extensive experience in case management, judicial collaboration, and community partnerships. Today, as a Treatment Court Analyst for OJD, Ms. Mark leads statewide efforts to strengthen treatment courts through training, evaluation, and data-driven support. Her work focuses on helping court teams implement best practices, sustain evidence-based programs, and promote systemic improvement across Oregon.

Oregon’s Treatment CourtsMs. Mark described the structure and purpose of Oregon’s treatment court network, explaining that her team provides training, technical assistance, and program evaluations for more than seventy courts, ensuring that each operates in accordance with national standards. She works closely with the Oregon Criminal Justice Commission to coordinate legislative efforts and measure program outcomes. One of her key initiatives has been the rebuilding of the Juvenile Drug Treatment Court Training Curriculum, which integrates current research with practical application. Ms. Mark emphasized that the ultimate goal of every training is to ensure that “what we teach translates into what happens in the courtroom.” By maintaining a strong connection between research and implementation, Oregon continues to enhance the quality, consistency, and integrity of its treatment courts.

Training Oregon’s Treatment CourtsMs. Mark outlined a range of training opportunities available to Oregon’s treatment court teams, including coordinator summits, judicial training programs, and a unique incentive camp designed to deepen understanding of behavior-based incentives and sanctions. These programs provide practitioners with the tools to apply the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence and to maintain fidelity to established best practices. She also discussed Oregon’s ongoing commitment to improving data collection and program evaluation, noting that reliable data enables courts to measure outcomes accurately and advocate more effectively for sustainable funding. The Oregon Judicial Department remains the primary funding source for treatment courts in the state, though additional resources are drawn from various agencies and grants.

During the conversation, Ms. Mark compared Oregon’s funding structure with those in other states. She noted particular interest in Texas’s liquor tax funding model, which dedicates a portion of mixed beverage tax revenue to specialty courts, providing a stable and predictable source of support. Ms. Mark indicated that she intends to research whether a similar approach could be adopted in Oregon to strengthen long-term funding for treatment court operations statewide.

Moving Forward in OregonThe discussion also explored innovative directions for Oregon’s treatment court system. Ms. Mark described the hub-and-spoke model currently in development, designed to link local programs with regional resources and ensure consistent training and technical support for smaller jurisdictions. She expressed particular interest in Michigan’s regional veterans treatment court system, which could serve as a model for Oregon’s efforts to expand access and coordination. Ms. Mark emphasized that while sound policy and reliable funding are essential, the success of treatment courts ultimately depends on the dedication of their professionals. “It’s the people on the ground, the coordinators, the judges, the treatment providers, who make this work,” she stated. “Our role is to give them the tools and the support to continue doing it well.”

ConclusionThroughout the conversation, Ms. Mark emphasized the importance of continuous professional development, strong partnerships, and innovation in sustaining effective treatment courts. Oregon’s programs continue to evolve through data-driven strategies, interagency collaboration, and a shared commitment to improving lives through accountability and rehabilitation. By combining her extensive experience as a local court coordinator with her current leadership role at the statewide level, Ms. Rachael Mark exemplifies how dedication, expertise, and innovation can strengthen treatment court systems and enhance justice outcomes across an entire state.

We wish to thank Ms. Rachael Mark for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode

The post Building Better Treatment Courts in Oregon with Ms. Rachael Mark appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Judges are increasingly working with artificial intelligence (AI) systems to analyze legal documents, predict case outcomes, and recommend sentences based on prior data. These technologies promise to improve efficiency in judicial decision-making, helping overburdened courts manage caseloads and identify relevant precedents. In theory, AI can promote fairness by reducing inconsistency and human error. Yet as reliance on these systems grows, so does the risk that judges relinquish their central decision-making role. Judicial legitimacy depends not only on fair outcomes, but also on the public’s confidence that a judge’s decisions are reasoned, ethical, and explainable.

AI and Legal Research: Accuracy and Over RelianceAI-driven legal research tools, particularly those built on large language models (LLMs)[1], are reshaping how judges and lawyers locate authority, draft opinions, and decide cases. These systems can summarize vast databases of case law in seconds, identify relevant rulings, and even generate draft memoranda. For overworked courts, such efficiency is tempting. Yet speed and convenience can mask significant dangers.

Unlike databases such as Westlaw or LexisNexis, which rely on verified sources, AI models generate text probabilistically, which means they predict what comes next based on patterns in their training data. This means they can produce “hallucinations,[2]” fabricating cases, misquoting precedents, or distorting holdings. Several recent incidents have seen attorneys sanctioned for submitting briefs citing non-existent cases generated by AI.[3] In one of these, a widely publicized case, Mata v. Avianca, Inc[4]. two attorneys were sanctioned after submitting a legal brief containing six fictitious case citations generated by AI. The Judge held that Mata’s lawyers had acted with “subjective bad faith” sufficient for sanctions of $5000.00 under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.[5]

It is not just lawyers who have been embarrassed. In 2024, a New Jersey federal judge withdrew an opinion in a shareholder lawsuit against the pharmaceutical company after it was discovered that the decision included AI-generated citations that referenced non-existent cases.[6] The citations were reportedly inserted by a staff member using an AI tool to help draft the opinion. Once the inaccuracies were brought to the judge’s attention, he promptly issued a corrected version. While the judge was not formally sanctioned, the incident underscored growing concerns about the use of AI in judicial decision making. Any judge who places an uncritical reliance on AI risks incorporating false or misleading authority into the judicial record.

Equally concerning is the potential erosion of deep legal reasoning. Effective legal analysis depends on careful reading, analogical thinking, and the weighing of competing principles, skills cultivated through experience and reflection. When AI systems summarize or paraphrase complex precedent, they may omit critical nuance. Over time, excessive reliance on AI in judicial decision making could narrow judicial understanding of evolving doctrine, reducing legal reasoning to pattern recognition rather than interpretation.

Judges and lawyers must therefore treat AI-generated research as a starting point, not an endpoint. Verification, cross-checking, and independent analysis remain essential. Courts should also establish ethical guidelines governing the use of generative AI in legal research, ensuring transparency about when and how such tools are employed.

Transparency: Opening the Black BoxFor centuries, the legitimacy of judicial decision-making has rested on the principle that justice must be seen to be done. Parties and the public alike must be able to understand the reasoning behind a judgment. Yet many AI systems operate as “black boxes,”[7] their internal logic hidden behind proprietary code or complex statistical models. Even developers often cannot fully explain how a machine-learning model arrives at a particular result.

When courts rely on such systems, transparency suffers. Defendants may not know what factors contributed to their risk score. Lawyers cannot effectively challenge an algorithm they cannot inspect. And judges may be left trusting an outcome they cannot independently verify. This opacity undermines due process and erodes the adversarial system’s commitment to testing evidence through scrutiny and cross-examination. Without transparency, the appearance of fairness is lost, no matter how efficient the technology.

Accountability: Who Is Responsible for the Algorithm’s Errors?Accountability is the cornerstone of judicial ethics. Judges are sworn to uphold the law, explain their reasoning, and take responsibility for their rulings. When algorithms influence those rulings, responsibility becomes diffuse. Who bears the blame when an AI system produces a biased or inaccurate outcome, the judge, the software vendor, or the data scientist who designed the model?

This diffusion of responsibility creates both ethical and constitutional concerns. Developers and vendors are not subject to judicial canons or disciplinary oversight. Yet their tools may shape decisions that profoundly affect liberty and rights. Courts must therefore insist on clear lines of accountability for any AI system used in judicial processes. Judges cannot delegate their constitutional duty of decision-making to machines.. AI may assist, but it must never decide.

Preserving the Human ElementAt the center of every judicial decision lies judicial judgment, a blend of experience, empathy, and moral reasoning that no algorithm can replicate. Sentencing, bail, and custody decisions often require consideration of context, compassion, and community safety, none of which can be reduced to data points. AI systems process patterns; judges understand people.

A machine cannot perceive remorse in a defendant’s voice, nor can it appreciate the nuances of rehabilitation, deterrence, or mercy. The judicial oath requires more than logical consistency; it demands moral discernment. As AI grows more capable, judges must guard against “automation bias”[8], the tendency to trust machine-generated results. Above all, a judge must never abdicate the act of judgment itself. Technology may inform, but only a human being, bound by law, ethics, and conscience, can render a judicial decision.

ConclusionAI is reshaping how courts think, decide, and deliver justice. It can enhance efficiency and insight, but it can also obscure reasoning, diffuse responsibility, and threaten the uniquely human qualities that give judicial decisions legitimacy. The path forward demands balance: embracing technological progress while ensuring that conscience, context, and accountability remain human. AI may aid justice, but it must never replace a judge’s judgment.

Other Articles in this seriesIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine–Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

Citations[1] A large language model (LLM) is an artificial intelligence system trained on vast amounts of text data to understand, generate, and predict human-like language.

[2] AI hallucinations are instances where an artificial intelligence system generates information or responses that appear plausible but are factually false or unsupported by its data.

[3] Several recent incidents have seen attorneys sanctioned for submitting briefs citing non-existent cases generated by AI. See, e.g., Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 WL 4114965 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023); Park v. Kim, No. 22-cv-1543 (E.D.N.Y. Nov. 27, 2023); United States v. Cohen, No. 20-CR-108 (S.D.N.Y. July 17, 2024).

[4] Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 WL 4114965 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023); https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/6499235932898b72d5cfb1aa

[5] Id.

[6] Mia Sato, Judge Withdraws Opinion After AI-Generated Citations Appear in Court Ruling, The Verge (Sept. 27, 2024), https://www.theverge.com/news/713653/judge-withdraws-cormedix-case-ai-citation-errors.

[7] A black box is a system, device, or process whose internal workings are hidden or unknown, but whose inputs and outputs can be observed and analyzed.

[8] Automation bias is the human tendency to place excessive trust in automated systems, often accepting their outputs without sufficient critical evaluation.

INTERESTED IN AI AND THE COURTS?

Artificial Intelligence is transforming justice. But it also raises complex questions of ethics, fairness and accountability. At the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), we provide training, consulting, and expert presentations to help courts, policymakers, and legal professionals navigate these challenges responsibly.

Contact ustoday to learn how JSI can support your organization in understanding and implementing AI in the courts.

The post Part Four: AI in the Courts: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a tool reserved for research laboratories and technology companies. It has entered courtrooms, not only as an aid to docket management or legal research but as a source of evidence. From documents generated by large language models (LLMs)[1] to deepfake videos[2] and AI-assisted data analysis[3], courts now confront a pressing question: can such evidence be admitted? The existing rules of evidence were not designed with these technologies in mind, yet they remain the framework judges must apply to ensure that trials are fair, reliable, and consistent with due process. So, the stakes for the judiciary could not be higher.

The Rise of AI-Generated EvidenceAI can produce a wide array of materials that parties may seek to introduce as evidence: synthesized images or videos[4], machine-translated transcripts[5], algorithmic predictions[6], and even summaries of complex data sets[7]. What sets AI evidence apart from traditional sources is the increased difficulty in verifying authenticity and reliability. Traditional evidence usually has a clear chain of custody and/or human witness to explain its origins. AI-generated material often does not. This raises critical challenges for judges, who serve as gatekeepers under the Rules of Evidence.

When conducting evidentiary analysis under the Frye standard[8] the focus is on whether the underlying scientific method or principle is generally accepted within the relevant expert community. Under the Daubert/Rule 702 framework[9], the analysis is broader: judges must determine whether the evidence is not only relevant but also reliable, with the proponent bearing the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence. Under the Daubert framework and the amended Rule 702, judges must ensure that the proponent demonstrates the reliability of AI evidence by a preponderance of the evidence. At the heart of both approaches, however, the questions remains those of relevance, reliability, and authenticity. AI-generated evidence may satisfy the test of relevance, but the processes that create it can be opaque, biased, or vulnerable to manipulation. Accordingly, when applying evidentiary standards, judges must require that proponents establish both the reliability and authenticity of such evidence.

Deepfakes and the Threat to AuthenticityPerhaps the most troubling form of AI evidence is the deepfake — an image, video, or audio file that appears real but is entirely fabricated. Deepfakes can be created with alarming ease, raising the possibility that fabricated evidence could be introduced to sway juries or intimidate witnesses.

Authentication under Rule 901[10] requires the proponent to demonstrate that the evidence “is what it purports to be.”[11]With deepfakes, this burden becomes far more complex. Judges may require expert testimony to explain the techniques used to create or debunk such material. Yet this adds significant costs to litigation and risks overwhelming courts with technical disputes. More troubling still, even genuine evidence may be challenged as fake, fueling what some scholars call the “liar’s dividend”: the erosion of trust in all forms of evidence.

Reliability and the “Black Box” ProblemReliability is a core concern in admitting AI-generated evidence. Courts often rely on expert witnesses under Rule 702[12] to explain scientific or technical evidence, but AI complicates this analysis. Many systems, particularly those built on deep learning, operate as “black boxes,”[13] with internal reasoning opaque even to developers. How can a judge evaluate the reliability of a process that cannot be explained?

This issue came to the fore in Wisconsin v. Loomis,[14] where the defendant challenged the use of a proprietary risk-assessment algorithm at sentencing. The court upheld its use, reasoning that it was merely one factor among many. The United States Supreme Court denied certiorari despite the fact the defendant was unable to examine the algorithm’s methodology because the vendor claimed it was a trade secret.[15] Cases like Loomis highlight the tension between proprietary protections and a defendant’s constitutional right to confront and challenge the evidence against them. If judges admit AI-generated evidence without adequate scrutiny, they risk undermining both fairness and constitutional due process.

The Role of Expert TestimonyGiven the technical complexity of AI, courts will increasingly rely on expert witnesses to establish authenticity and reliability. These experts must be able to explain how the AI system was trained, what data it used, and how outputs were validated. But not every litigant can afford such experts, creating an equity problem. Wealthier parties may be able to marshal expert testimony, while under-resourced litigants may be left vulnerable, creating the potential for a two-tiered evidentiary system. Judges must therefore be mindful of the access-to-justice implications when AI evidence is at issue.

The ethical responsibility here is clear. Judges must exercise heightened vigilance, ensuring that experts are qualified and that their testimony rests on sound scientific principles. Lawyers, in turn, must not blindly accept AI outputs but must verify their accuracy before presenting them in court. The duty of competence now extends to understanding the limits of AI evidence.

Privacy, Data, and Chain of CustodyAI evidence also raises questions about privacy and chain of custody. AI systems often rely on massive datasets, some of which may include sensitive or unlawfully obtained information. If AI evidence is generated from improperly sourced data, courts must consider whether admitting it would violate privacy laws or ethical obligations.

Chain of custody presents another hurdle. Traditional evidence must be carefully tracked to ensure it has not been altered. With AI, ensuring the integrity of digital inputs and outputs requires new protocols. Courts may demand documentation showing how data was collected, processed, and analyzed. Without such safeguards, the risk of tampering or error looms large.

Public Trust and the Legitimacy of AI EvidenceUltimately, the admissibility of AI evidence touches on more than technical rules; it implicates public trust in the justice system. If litigants and the public believe that outcomes rest on unreliable or incomprehensible machine processes, confidence in the courts will erode. Conversely, if courts are seen as proactive in scrutinizing AI, setting clear standards, and safeguarding fairness, legitimacy can be preserved.

Transparency and communication are essential. Courts should be open about when and how AI evidence is admitted, what standards were applied, and why certain safeguards are necessary. This not only educates the public but also reinforces the judiciary’s role as a guardian of fairness.

Keeping Judges in ControlThe guiding principle must be that AI serves justice, not the other way around. Judges cannot cede their constitutional role as arbiters of fact and law to machines. AI may assist by providing information, but it cannot weigh credibility, apply moral reasoning, or consider the human consequences of a decision.

The ethical duty is clear: judges must remain firmly in control, using AI evidence cautiously and only when its reliability can be demonstrated. Lawyers must likewise ensure that their use of AI complies with professional responsibilities of competence, candor, and fairness.

Conclusion: The Future of AI EvidenceWhile the dangers of AI evidence are significant, it is important to recognize the potential benefits as well. Properly validated AI tools can assist courts in managing complex data, identifying patterns more quickly than humans, and even reducing costs in cases with massive discovery burdens. When admitted responsibly, AI-generated evidence has the potential to enhance efficiency and accuracy, provided judges apply rigorous safeguards to ensure that fairness and due process remain paramount.

The courtroom of the future will almost certainly see more AI-generated evidence, ranging from predictive analytics to multimedia exhibits. The question is not whether AI will appear in trials—it already has—but how courts will respond. Admissibility must remain anchored in the traditional principles that have long guided evidence: relevance, reliability, authenticity, and fairness.

Other Articles in this seriesIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine-Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

Citations[1] A large language model is a type of artificial intelligence system that has been trained to understand, generate, and work with human language.

[2] A deepfake video is a type of synthetic media created using artificial intelligence (AI) that makes it appear as though someone is saying or doing something they never actually did.

[3] AI-assisted data analysis is the use of artificial intelligence tools and techniques to help people examine, interpret, and make sense of data more effectively and efficiently

[4] Synthesized images or videos are artificially created or altered media, often produced by artificial intelligence, that depict events, people, or scenes which may never have actually occurred.

[5] Machine-translated transcripts are written records of spoken or written language that have been automatically converted from one language to another by computer software, without human translation or editing.

[6] Algorithmic predictions are forecasts or decisions generated by computer algorithms that analyze data patterns to estimate future events, behaviors, or outcomes such as those used in risk and needs assessments.

[7] Summaries of complex data sets are simplified explanations or condensed reports that highlight key patterns, trends, or findings from large or complicated collections of information, making them easier to understand and use.

[8] Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir.1923). Though now considered the minority rule in the United States, it remains the law in several major states, including California, Texas, and New York.

[9] Daubert/Rule 702, which is based upon the Supreme Court decision in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), is now the majority approach within the United States. Under this approach expert evidence is admissible only if it is grounded in reliable principles and methods, applied properly to the facts, and shown to assist the judge or jury in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.

[10] Rule 901. Authenticating or Identifying Evidence

[11] Id.

[12] Rule 702. Testimony by Expert Witnesses

[13] A black box is a system, device, or process whose internal workings are hidden or unknown, but whose inputs and outputs can be observed and analyzed.

[14] Loomis v. Wisconsin, 881 N.W.2d 749 (Wis. 2016)

[15] https://www.scotusblog.com/cases/case-files/loomis-v-wisconsin/ Loomis v. Wisconsin

INTERESTED IN AI AND THE COURTS?

Artificial Intelligence is transforming justice. But it also raises complex questions of ethics, fairness and accountability. At the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), we provide training, consulting, and expert presentations to help courts, policymakers, and legal professionals navigate these challenges responsibly.

Contact ustoday to learn how JSI can support your organization in understanding and implementing AI in the courts.

The post Part Three: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By: Louis Porter, Michigan Attorney

The United States has long relied on a constitutional structure built on checks and balances—a system designed to prevent the concentration of power in any one branch of government. But today, that equilibrium faces a serious test. A legal doctrine known as the Strong Unitary Executive Theory (SUET) has gained some support among United States Supreme Court justices, threatening to shift authority dramatically toward the executive branch. As this theory edges closer to becoming judicial doctrine, state governments and court professionals must understand what is at stake—and begin developing strategic responses to preserve the integrity of American democracy.

Understanding Strong Unitary Executive TheoryAt its core, SUET is a theory of constitutional interpretation asserting that all executive power is vested solely in the President, granting the office broad authority over every part of the federal executive branch. This includes powers traditionally shared with or constrained by Congress and independent federal agencies. While the idea has been debated in legal scholarship for decades, its practical implications have come into focus more sharply in recent years—especially with the emergence of Project 2025 and related legal cases, including Wilcox v. Trump.

If embraced by the U.S. Supreme Court, SUET could invalidate many statutory limits on presidential control over the executive branch. For example:

• Presidents could remove heads of independent agencies at will.
• The Civil Service Reform Act could be weakened, restoring patronage-based hiring.
• The Impoundment Control Act could be rendered unenforceable, allowing presidents to withhold congressionally appropriated funds for political or ideological reasons.
• Agency rulemaking could be subordinated entirely to presidential directives, undermining both expertise and public accountability.

These shifts would not merely centralize executive authority—they would undermine the institutional independence that helps ensure fair, evidence-based governance across agencies like the NLRB, the FCC, and the Federal Reserve.

The Judicial TrendA growing number of recent court decisions show deference to the executive branch—sometimes at the expense of congressional intent or judicial restraint. In Trump v. United States (2024), the Supreme Court held that the President enjoys immunity from criminal liability for “core constitutional powers” and partial immunity for other official acts. This ruling greatly narrows the scope of accountability for presidential misconduct.

Other cases demonstrate a pattern of granting emergency stays or rejecting injunctive relief even when the executive branch acts outside established legal boundaries. The memo references Noem v. Doe, Department of Homeland Security v. DVD, and Wilcox v. Trump as examples of this deference. Collectively, these cases suggest a rebalancing of judicial review in favor of executive discretion—especially in matters of national security, immigration, and foreign policy.

In the case of Wilcox, the Court allowed the President to remove members of independent boards, undercutting the longstanding precedent of Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935). The practical impact is clear: federal regulatory bodies may soon become tools of presidential will rather than expert-driven, bipartisan entities.

Consequences for StatesThe SUET framework does not only affect federal institutions—it has deep implications for state sovereignty and the federal balance of power. States could find their ability to challenge executive overreach significantly curtailed. Preemption doctrines may be expanded to override state laws, and federal agencies—now politically directed—could block state-level enforcement of environmental, health, and labor protections.

In areas like public safety, the environment, and economic regulation, states rely on predictable relationships with federal agencies. SUET threatens that relationship by introducing instability and politicization, weakening the federal-state partnership that underpins many public policies.

Strategic State ResponsesStates are not powerless in the face of these changes. The memorandum outlines a broad range of strategies—legal, legislative, and administrative—that states can pursue to protect democratic norms and maintain institutional independence:

1. Congressional Engagement: State attorneys general and governors should work with their congressional delegations to review and revise statutes that overly empower the executive. This includes narrowing delegations of authority and clarifying standards for emergency powers and administrative action.
2. Legal Challenges and Amicus Briefs: States can contest SUET interpretations by filing or joining legal challenges, especially when a case threatens to weaken agency independence or interfere with state authority.
3. State Constitutional Protections: Many state constitutions provide more expansive rights than the federal Constitution. States can codify protections for due process, separation of powers, and civil liberties through their own courts and legislation.
4. Preserving Regulatory Capacity: As federal agencies become more politically controlled, states may need to replicate key regulatory functions. Though limited by budget and expertise, states can collaborate regionally and enact baseline protections to maintain standards.
5. Guarding the National Guard: Governors should reassert their authority over state militias and prepare legal safeguards against improper federalization, especially in the absence of rebellion or insurrection.
6. Reforming Ethics and Accountability: States should examine their public integrity laws, including bribery statutes, public records rules, and anti-doxing provisions, to ensure accountability and transparency in governance.
7. Strategic Litigation: When challenged in federal court, states should raise affirmative defenses grounded in federalism, parens patriae (their role in protecting citizens), and procedural due process. Cases should, when possible, be filed in state courts raising state law claims and carefully limiting the types of federal officers named to avoid removal to federal jurisdictions that may favor the executive.
8. Public Communication and Collaboration: States should coordinate messaging, highlight legal inconsistencies, and promote cross-state collaboration to push back against federal overreach. Transparency, public education, and civic engagement are essential tools in maintaining institutional legitimacy.

A Call to LeadershipThe article ends with a challenge: If not these strategies, then what? While some of the responses proposed may seem aggressive or unorthodox, they arise from a genuine concern over maintaining the rule of law and the balance of powers.

The courts, including the Supreme Court, have a vital role in preserving constitutional structure—but when that role falters, states must be prepared to act. Strong Unitary Executive Theory may represent one interpretation of executive power, but it is not the only one. Through strategic advocacy, robust litigation, and principled governance, states can reaffirm their role as vital partners in American democracy.

Additional ResourceFor a more in-depth discussion on this topic, written by Louis Porter, click HERE.

The post Preserving Balance: State Responses to the Strong Unitary Executive Theory appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #87In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series on state specialty court associations and the leaders who help guide their growth and effectiveness. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect and we are interviewing Ms. Amber Gregory, the Executive Director (ED) for the Texas Association of Specialty Courts.

About Amber GregoryMs. Gregory is not only the ED for the Texas Association, she is also the Director of the Specialty Court Resource Center at Sam Houston State University. In her dual role, Ms. Gregory provides leadership to both the statewide association of professionals working in specialty courts and to the Resource Center that offers training, technical assistance, and program evaluations across the state. Together, these positions allow her to support judges, coordinators, and treatment court staff in strengthening their programs and ensuring they operate in line with best practice standards.

Texas Specialty Court Resource CenterMs. Gregory began by explaining the structure of the Specialty Court Resource Center. The center, funded by the Governor’s Office, is designed to be a hub for training and technical assistance. One of its most important functions is conducting peer reviews of existing specialty courts. These reviews help ensure that programs are adhering to nationally recognized standards and allow for constructive feedback to improve operations. By grounding its work in research and collaboration, the center plays a critical role in enhancing the quality of treatment courts across Texas.

Texas Association of Specialty CourtsAlongside her work at the Resource Center, Ms. Gregory tells us that she is the Executive Director of the Texas Association of Specialty Courts. The association provides a professional home for individuals working in or supporting these courts. Its mission is to promote the effectiveness of specialty courts through education, training, and collaboration. Ms. Gregory emphasized the strong relationship between the association and Sam Houston State University. Meetings and retreats often take place on campus, which provides members with access to university resources and a supportive environment for professional development.

Ms Gregory explains that membership in the Texas Association of Specialty Courts is open to individuals who complete an application and pay a modest annual fee. At present, the cost is $40, though Ms. Gregory noted that it may increase to $50 in the near future. Many members choose to renew their memberships during the annual conference.

Statewide Annual Conference for Texas Specialty CourtsPlanning for the annual conference is one of the association’s major undertakings. Attendance has grown significantly over the years, reaching 550 participants in recent years. The conference brings together judges, coordinators, probation officers, treatment providers, and other professionals to share knowledge and best practices. Ms. Gregory tells us that the 2026 conference will be held in Dallas at the Hilton Anatole Hotel in March. She explained that planning begins well in advance to secure quality speakers, design relevant curricula, and ensure the event continues to provide value to participants.

State Association Milestones Ms. Gregory also reflected on some of the key milestones and challenges specialty courts in Texas have faced. A major accomplishment came in 2019, with the passage of the mixed beverage tax, which directed additional funding toward specialty courts. This dedicated revenue stream has allowed for greater program stability and expansion. At the same time, challenges remain, particularly in the area of data collection and evaluation. Ms. Gregory pointed out that while many programs operate effectively, the absence of consistent statewide data makes it difficult to demonstrate outcomes in a systematic way. Encouragingly, Texas has approved funding for a new case management system that will provide courts with the tools to track performance and outcomes more effectively.

The conversation also explored Ms. Gregory’s personal journey into leadership. Having originally been involved with the association, she later transitioned to managing the Resource Center in Huntsville. She described the ways in which the two positions overlap and complement one another. As Executive Director, she provides vision and support to the association’s members. As Director of the Resource Center, she applies that vision by conducting assessments, leading peer reviews, and developing training curricula. She explained that she particularly enjoys the opportunity to work directly with courts during assessments, as these experiences inform the training and technical assistance provided at the annual conference.

Conclusion Throughout the discussion, Ms. Gregory emphasized the importance of continuous training and the willingness of specialty courts to adapt and evolve. Specialty courts, by design, are collaborative and innovative institutions. Maintaining their effectiveness requires ongoing professional development and a commitment to evidence-based practices. By bridging her roles at both the association and the Resource Center, Ms. Gregory ensures that Texas courts remain at the forefront of innovation and quality improvement.

We wish to thank Amber Gregory for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Related Episodes on Justice Speaks* Colorado Specialty Courts: Building Statewide Support – Jess Throlson shares how Colorado strengthens specialty court programs through collaboration. * Iowa Specialty Courts: Innovation and Leadership – Dawn Huddleston discusses new approaches shaping Iowa’s specialty courts. * Kansas Specialty Courts: Challenges and Successes – Insights from Kansas on sustaining and expanding treatment courts statewide. * North Dakota Specialty Courts: Growth and Development – A conversation on leadership, program development, and statewide coordination.

The post Amber Gregory on Texas Specialty Courts and Leadership appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In part two of our series on AI and the courts, we explore how AI’s growing role in the criminal justice system raises ethical challenges for judges and lawyers.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is entering the judicial system, offering tools that promise lower costs, greater efficiency, and improved access to justice. Courts are already using AI, whether judges and lawyers know it or not, for tasks ranging from docket management to risk assessments in sentencing and bail. This creates opportunities for innovation, but also presents profound ethical challenges. At the heart of the challenges are questions of bias, transparency, professional responsibility, and public trust: issues that are fundamental to judicial legitimacy.

Bias and Fairness: The Hidden Danger in the DataOne of the greatest perils with AI is its potential to replicate and even amplify existing inequities in the justice system. AI systems draw from historical data, and if that data reflects patterns of racial or socioeconomic bias, such as disproportionate arrest or sentencing practices, the algorithm will perpetuate those disparities.

Risk assessment tools, for example, are now being used to assist in bail or sentencing decisions. Many of these tools are neutral and objective, however, studies have shown that some disproportionately identify defendants from marginalized communities as “high risk.” This is not because the algorithm is malicious, but because it has been trained on data shaped by decades of biased practices.¹

For judges and lawyers, the ethical dilemma is clear: which AI tools carry built-in bias, and which can be trusted? To answer that question, they must scrutinize how these systems are designed, the data they use, and how their outputs are validated. To do that they need to look inside.

Transparency and the Challenge of the “Black Box”This in turn raises another ethical issue of transparency. Many AI systems operate as “black boxes,” where the internal reasoning process is opaque even to their developers. When courts rely on such systems, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, for judges, attorneys, or litigants to understand the basis for the recommendations provided.

This lack of transparency threatens core values of accountability and due process.² If a defendant cannot challenge the basis of an algorithmic risk assessment, how can the right to a fair hearing be protected? This is not merely a technical concern; it is a constitutional one.

To address this, some scholars and judicial bodies advocate for rules requiring disclosure of how AI systems are trained, what data sets are used, and what safeguards are in place to mitigate bias.³ Judges must also consider whether proprietary claims by AI vendors can ever outweigh a litigant’s right to challenge the evidence against them. If courts allow vendor secrecy to shield AI systems from scrutiny, they risk undermining both due process and the integrity of the justice system itself.

Ethical Duties of Lawyers and JudgesJudges and lawyers alike bear ethical responsibilities when using AI. As one recent ethics opinion emphasized judicial officers have a duty to maintain technological competence.⁴ Lawyers must understand both the capabilities and the limitations of AI tools to satisfy their duty of competence under the Model Rules of Professional Conduct.²

This responsibility includes verifying AI outputs, disclosing when AI has been used in legal filings, and ensuring that client confidentiality is not compromised when information is processed through third-party systems. The recent spate of disciplinary actions against attorneys who submitted briefs containing fictitious AI-generated case citations illustrates the stakes. Competence now requires not only knowing the law but also knowing the tools used to practice it.

Judges, in particular, must not only understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools but also ensure these tools never undermine their role as decision makers. The ethical duty of judges is clear: they alone bear the responsibility to decide cases, guided by the law and their oath of office. Independence, impartiality, and accountability are not delegable to machines.

While AI can assist by analyzing data, identifying patterns, or even suggesting outcomes, it cannot replace the uniquely human responsibility of weighing evidence, applying legal principles, and rendering judgments grounded in fairness and empathy. As AI becomes more integrated into court processes, judges must ensure that these tools remain aids to justice, not substitutes for it. To do otherwise would risk eroding public confidence in the courts and weakening the very legitimacy of judicial decision-making.

Public Trust and the Legitimacy of Judicial DecisionsThe legitimacy of the justice system rests on public confidence that courts are fair, impartial, and transparent. The use of AI may complicate that perception. If litigants believe that algorithms, rather than judges, are deciding their cases, trust in the system may erode.

This risk is heightened when courts adopt AI without clear communication. Openness with stakeholders, litigants, attorneys, and the public, is essential to building confidence in AI’s role.² Just as importantly, courts must ensure that AI is viewed as a tool to assist judges, not to replace them. Judicial empathy, discretion, and human judgment cannot be automated, and their absence would fundamentally alter the nature of justice.

Keeping Humans in the LoopThe promise of AI lies in its ability to assist, not supplant, human decision-makers. Ethical use of AI requires maintaining a “human in the loop.” Judges must retain ultimate responsibility for decisions, using AI outputs as one factor among many. This safeguard recognizes the limits of technology while affirming the irreplaceable role of human judgment in applying law to fact.

Empathy, the ability to consider context, appreciate nuance, and weigh the human impact of a decision, cannot be programmed into an algorithm. While AI may help courts process information more efficiently, it lacks the moral and ethical reasoning that underpins judicial decision-making. Ensuring that human oversight remains central is both an ethical necessity and a safeguard for due process.

Conclusion: Balancing Promise with PrudenceAI offers the potential to improve efficiency, reduce costs, and expand access to justice. Yet the perils of bias, opacity, and diminished public trust are equally real. The ethical path forward requires vigilance: demanding transparency, ensuring human oversight, and requiring judges and lawyers to maintain the competence necessary to use these tools responsibly.

The promise of AI is undeniable; but its role in the courts must be carefully circumscribed to preserve the fairness, accountability, and legitimacy of the justice system. The guiding principle is clear: technology should serve justice, not the other way around.²

Next in the Series: Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence

Other Articles in this seriesIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine-Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

Citations1. Sandra G. Mayson, Bias In, Bias Out, 128 Yale L.J. 2218 (2019). 2. National Center for State Courts, AI and the Courts: Judicial and Legal Ethics Issues (2023), https://www.ncsc.org/resources-courts/ai-courts-judicial-and-legal-ethics-issues. 3. Cary Coglianese & David Lehr, Transparency and Algorithmic Governance, 71 Admin. L. Rev. 1 (2019). 4. Michigan State Bar, Judicial Ethics Opinion JI-155 (Oct. 2023), https://www.michbar.org/opinions/ethics/numbered_opinions/JI-155.

Other JSI Posts/Podcasts on Judicial EthicsJudicial Ethics in Problem-Solving Courts: Staying Impartial
Judicial Ethics and Compassion: A Veterans Treatment Court Dilemma
Ethical Boundaries for Veteran Treatment Court Mentors
Problem Solving Court Leadership Training by JSI

INTERESTED IN AI AND THE COURTS?

Artificial Intelligence is transforming justice. But it also raises complex questions of ethics, fairness and accountability. At the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), we provide training, consulting, and expert presentations to help courts, policymakers, and legal professionals navigate these challenges responsibly.

Contact ustoday to learn how JSI can support your organization in understanding and implementing AI in the courts.

The post Part Two: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer confined to realm of science fiction or the dreams of Silicon Valley. It is entering our courtrooms, quietly but unmistakably, reshaping the way justice is delivered. From legal research to predictive analytics, AI is transforming processes that were once exclusively the province of human judgment and labor. The opportunities presented by AI in the legal system are significant, as is the risks. This opening installment in our series explores how AI is changing the courtroom and sets the stage for a look at the ethical, legal, and practical challenges courts must now confront.

AI in Everyday Court FunctionsJudges, lawyers and other justice system professionals are adopting AI in multiple areas. In the area of legal research, platforms powered by machine learning can quickly scan vast databases of case law and statutes, identifying relevant precedents in seconds rather than hours. Document review during discovery, once the most time-consuming and costly phase of litigation, can be assisted by AI systems that filter millions of documents for relevance and privilege.

Beyond research, courts are beginning to use AI tools to help manage caseloads, identify scheduling efficiencies, and overcome docketing problems. In some jurisdictions, judges and other criminal justice professionals are consulting algorithmic risk assessment tools to assist in evaluating individuals who appear in court when making sentencing or bail decisions. AI chatbots are being tested to provide self-represented litigants with guidance on filing procedures and drafting basic pleadings, offering access to justice for individuals who might otherwise struggle to navigate the legal system.

Benefits That Cannot Be IgnoredThe integration of AI into the courts offers real advantages.

• Efficiency and Cost Savings: Automating routine tasks reduces the time and money spent on legal proceedings. This helps address backlogs that burden courts and delay justice.
• Consistency in Decision-Making: Properly designed algorithms can reduce a judge’s variability in his or her judicial outcomes by applying rules consistently across similar cases.
• Expanded Access to Justice: For self-represented litigants, AI can act as a digital guide, providing a level of legal help that was previously out of reach. Online platforms can even facilitate dispute resolution for small claims, traffic violations, or housing cases.
• Enhanced Data Analysis: Courts can use AI to spot patterns in case filings, track emerging legal issues, and even allocate resources more effectively.

These benefits explain why jurisdictions across the world are experimenting with AI tools. For overburdened courts, the allure of faster, cheaper, and more consistent justice is difficult to resist.

The Risks on the HorizonDespite these promises, AI raises fundamental concerns for the judiciary. Algorithms are only as good as the data inputted into them. If historical data reflects systemic wrongs, for instance, in bond setting or sentencing, those errors could be replicated and amplified. A risk assessment tool might unintentionally label defendants from marginalized communities as higher risk simply because of unfair data inputs.

Transparency is another pressing issue. Many AI systems operate as “black boxes,” making it nearly impossible for lawyers, litigants, or even judges to understand how a recommendation or prediction was reached. This undermines the principle that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. Without explainability, litigants may question whether decisions are fair or whether due process has been compromised.

The tendency of AI’s legal research to produce fictitious case citations has prompted courts nationwide to question or sanction attorneys, creating new technological challenges for both litigants and judges.

Finally, reliance on AI can create overconfidence in technology at the expense of human judgment. AI may suggest efficiency, but it cannot provide empathy, moral reasoning, or the nuanced understanding of justice that human judges bring. The danger lies in courts shifting from assistance to automation, allowing machines to substitute for, rather than support, judicial decision-making.

Setting the Stage for Ethical DebateAs AI becomes more entrenched in legal systems, the central question becomes: how do we strike a balance? Courts must harness AI’s power while ensuring that fairness, accountability, and legitimacy are preserved. This means developing safeguards that keep humans firmly “in the loop,” demanding transparency from AI vendors, and adapting evidentiary rules to account for AI-generated material.

Already, debates rage over whether AI-generated evidence, including deepfakes, should be admissible, whether algorithmic sentencing tools violate due process, and who bears responsibility when AI makes a mistake. Judges, lawyers, and policymakers are all grappling with these questions, often in real time as new technologies emerge faster than the laws designed to regulate them.

A Transformative EraThe introduction of AI into the courtroom is not a future prospect, it is a present reality. Its benefits are tangible, its risks real, and the implications of both are far-reaching.

For courts, the challenge is clear: embrace innovation while safeguarding the principles of justice. This series will explore those challenges in greater detail, from ethical concerns and evidentiary rules to accountability, global trends, and the guardrails needed for the future.

Artificial intelligence has already stepped into the courtroom. The question now is whether it will strengthen the pursuit of justice — or compromise it.

Other Articles in this seriesIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine-Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

INTERESTED IN AI AND THE COURTS?

Artificial Intelligence is transforming justice. But it also raises complex questions of ethics, fairness and accountability. At the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), we provide training, consulting, and expert presentations to help courts, policymakers, and legal professionals navigate these challenges responsibly.

Contact ustoday to learn how JSI can support your organization in understanding and implementing AI in the courts.

The post Part One: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer a distant concept confined to research labs and tech companies. It has entered the legal system, reshaping how justice is administered and affecting the foundations of legal decision-making. From tools that streamline discovery and manage caseloads to algorithms that assess risk or even assist in drafting judicial opinions, AI is transforming the work of judges, lawyers, and justice system professionals at a remarkable pace.

These changes bring opportunities, greater efficiency, consistency, and access to justice, but they also present real risks. Bias embedded in training data, opaque “black box” systems, and questions about accountability all raise urgent concerns. Courts will be faced with complex issues of fairness and due process in ways they have never encountered. At stake is the public’s trust in the legitimacy of the justice system.

A Six-Part Blog Series on AI and the CourtsTo outline this rapidly evolving landscape, the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) is offering a six-part blog series: AI and the Courts: Balancing Justice in a Digital Age. Each installment will examine a critical dimension of AI’s impact on the judiciary:

1. AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
2. AI in the Courts – Ethical Challenges
3. AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
4. Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
5. Courts of the Future – Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
6. Judging the Machine – Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

This series will highlight both the promise and the perils of AI, drawing on case law, policy debates, and real-world applications already in use around the globe. Most importantly, it will focus on what these developments mean for judges, attorneys, and justice leaders committed to safeguarding fairness and integrity in the courts.

The integration of AI into the legal system is not a question of if but how. By exploring these issues, JSI seeks to provide clarity, spark discussion, and support justice professionals in adapting to this new era with wisdom and foresight.

Join us, starting today with part 1, AI in the Courtroom: Benefits and Risks as we examine how AI is changing the courts and how the courts can ensure that technology serves justice rather than undermines it.

Articles in this seriesIntroduction: Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute
Part 1: AI in the Courtroom: Opportunities and Risks
Part 2: AI in the Courts: Ethical Challenges
Part 3: AI on Trial – Admissibility of AI-Generated Evidence
Part 4: Judicial Decision-Making: Transparency, Accountability, and the Judicial Role
Part 5: Courts of the Future-Innovation, Access, and Global Trends
Part 6: Judging the Machine–Lessons, Guardrails, and the Path Forward

INTERESTED IN AI AND THE COURTS?

Artificial Intelligence is transforming justice. But it also raises complex questions of ethics, fairness and accountability. At the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), we provide training, consulting, and expert presentations to help courts, policymakers, and legal professionals navigate these challenges responsibly.

Contact ustoday to learn how JSI can support your organization in understanding and implementing AI in the courts.

The post Artificial Intelligence and the Courts: A Blog Series from Justice Speakers Institute appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks Podcast #86In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series about the role of State Treatment Court Coordinators. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

About Dawn HuddlestonIn this episode, we interview Dawn Huddleston, the Specialty Court Program Manager for the State of Kansas, who brings over two decades of experience in the justice system. She tells how her career began in a therapeutic unit at a correctional facility, where she discovered her passion for helping individuals struggling with substance use disorders. That experience inspired her to take her first treatment court position in 2007 as a juvenile drug court officer. Over the years, Ms. Huddleston advanced through multiple roles, including special program supervisor and adult drug court coordinator. In 2023, she was appointed as the State Treatment Court Coordinator, responsible for guiding and supporting Kansas’ network of specialty courts.

During the discussion, Ms. Huddleston describes how her role involves statewide program management, providing training, and delivering technical assistance to courts throughout Kansas. She emphasizes the importance of maintaining fidelity to evidence-based treatment court models and highlights motivational interviewing as a crucial skill for court teams. She also shares efforts underway to create an annual statewide training conference to strengthen education and collaboration across Kansas specialty courts. This new conference is envisioned as a cornerstone for continuous learning, and Ms. Huddleston expresses interest in partnerships with organizations such as All Rise to further expand training opportunities for treatment court professionals.

Supporting Kansas’ Specialty CourtsFunding for specialty courts is always a significant challenge, and Ms. Huddleston outlines how Kansas has built a diverse funding model to sustain its programs. This includes federal grants, opioid settlement dollars, state grants, and, most recently, legislative appropriations dedicated to supporting treatment courts. Justice notes the innovative approaches taken in other states, such as Texas and Maryland, where programs are funded through a penny tax on alcohol sales. Ms. Huddleston shares her excitement about Kansas’ recent legislative success, particularly because it was achieved at a time when many other programs were experiencing budget reductions. She credits this accomplishment to the proven effectiveness of Kansas treatment courts and the collaborative work of her team.

Upcoming Conference FlyerThe conversation also examines the evolution of Kansas’ treatment courts, which began as locally operated programs and are now transitioning toward a more unified statewide system. Ms. Huddleston describes this shift as critical to ensuring consistency, expanding access, and aligning with national best practices. She acknowledges several challenges, including the need for stronger infrastructure, improved data collection and reporting systems, and addressing gaps in treatment services, particularly in rural areas. However, she also sees opportunities in technology, telehealth, and virtual services to bridge those gaps and provide more equitable access to care.

The Future of Kansas’ Specialty CourtsMs. Huddleston envisions a future for Kansas specialty courts where evidence-based practices are fully integrated, trauma-informed care is consistently applied, and statewide outcomes are measured and reported to demonstrate effectiveness. She emphasizes the importance of relationships, between state leaders, local courts, treatment providers, and national organizations, as essential to building and sustaining high-quality programs. Justice echoes these sentiments, noting that strong leadership and collaboration have always been central to the success of treatment courts nationwide.

We wish to thank Dawn Huddleston for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

The post Kansas State Specialty Court Coordinator: Dawn Huddleston’s Vision appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Opioid-related deaths and substance use continue to challenge courts and communities across the United States. In response, one state, New York, developed a Opioid Intervention Court (OIC), designed to rapidly identify individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD) and link them to evidence-based treatment, including medications for opioid use disorder (MOUD).

A recent stepped‑wedge randomized controlled trial (RCT) study evaluated the effectiveness of this model, and demonstrated significant outcome improvements [1][1] This study offers important information for justice professionals who are addressing OUD.

Ten Essential Elements of an Opioid Intervention CourtThese OICs have as a foundation Ten Essential Elements:[2]

1. Broad legal eligibility ensures that clinical need, not solely charge type, drives participation.
2. Immediate screening for overdose risk occurs at or near arraignment, using validated tools to identify individuals at the highest risk of fatal overdose.
3. Informed consent follows consultation with defense counsel so that entry into the court program is voluntary and fully understood.
4. Suspension of prosecution or expedited plea allows participants to focus on stabilization rather than legal proceedings.
5. Rapid clinical assessment and treatment engagement connects participants to care quickly, with evidence-based MOUD offered as standard practice.
6. Recovery support services—including peer recovery advocates and family support navigators—help participants address needs beyond clinical treatment.
7. Frequent judicial supervision and compliance monitoring creates structure and accountability, emphasizing support over punishment.
8. Intensive case management coordinates care and links participants to community resources, including housing, employment, and transportation.
9. Program completion and continuing care focus on short-term stabilization, generally within 90 days, with warm handoffs to ongoing treatment courts or community-based services.
10. Performance evaluation and program improvement rely on real-time data to monitor program outcomes and drive continuous quality improvement.

These elements distinguish opioid intervention courts from traditional drug courts by emphasizing speed, stabilization, and health-based support, rather than compliance-focused sanctioning. So, unlike traditional courts, which often require participants to plead guilty and gradually advance through treatment and supervision, OICs, applying these 10 elements, focus on immediate stabilization and overdose prevention. Prosecutorial action is paused or fast-tracked, and participants are rapidly assessed and connected to treatment, often within 24 hours of arrest. This shift moves the court from a primarily punitive structure to one prioritizing health and safety.

A Study of an Opioid Intervention CourtA study conducted about the effectiveness of these courts found that participants in OICs entered treatment significantly faster than those even in traditional drug courts, with a fourfold increase in linkage to MOUD. More than 80 percent of OIC participants began MOUD, compared to 46 percent in standard drug court programs. Participants also remained engaged in both treatment and court supervision for longer periods, supporting program stability and leading to higher completion rates.[3] While recidivism data was still being finalized, early indicators suggest lower rates of reoffending, consistent with research showing that MOUD reduces criminal activity.[4] Although these courts require additional resources to establish rapid screening, daily judicial supervision, and intensive case management, preliminary analysis indicates that these costs are offset by savings resulting from fewer overdoses, reduced emergency service utilization, and decreased rates of repeated incarceration.

Why this MattersThe opioid epidemic continues to place enormous pressure on local courts, public health systems, and law enforcement. The OIC model demonstrates that courts can be a gateway to life-saving treatment rather than a revolving door of incarceration.

By prioritizing immediate screening, voluntary participation, rapid treatment engagement, and recovery support, these courts provide a pathway to stabilization and improved long-term outcomes for individuals and communities.For jurisdictions considering implementing or refining their own opioid response, the study establishes CIDs applying the Ten Essential Elements offer a clear operational framework grounded in evidence and public health principles. This approach is scalable across urban, suburban, and rural courts, and the study appears to demonstrate its effectiveness in improving public safety.

As this research shows, courts that adopt this approach can expect faster treatment initiation, higher use of proven medications, improved retention, and a healthier, safer community.

[1] Elkington, K. S., Morrissey, M., Ferrando, S. J., St. Jacques, A., Cao, D., Witas, J., & DiMaggio, C. (2021). Stepped-wedge randomized controlled trial of a novel opioid court to improve identification of need and linkage to medications for opioid use disorder treatment for court-involved adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 133, 108515.

[2] [2] New York State Unified Court System & Center for Court Innovation. (2019). The 10 Essential Elements of Opioid Intervention Courts.

[3] Elkington et al.

[4] Id.

The post Opioid Intervention Courts: A Proven Path to Recovery appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Janel McFeat, Executive Director of the Washington Statewide Reentry CouncilThis episode of Justice Speaks continues the series of interviews with individuals who impact the Justice System. In this episode, we interview Janel McFeat, the Executive Director of the Washington Statewide Reentry Council, who has been instrumental in expanding the reentry movement. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

Janel McFeat

Ms. McFeat’s journey in the field of reentry spans 25 years. She began her career working with youth in Washington State and developed and implemented a nationally recognized reentry program for the Port Gamble S’Klallam tribe. Now, as the Executive Director of the Washington Statewide Reentry Council, she aims to bring a restorative approach to reentry on a broader statewide scale.

Janel’s background is rooted in her Native American and Swedish heritage, which instilled in her the importance of listening and storytelling. She holds a bachelor’s degree in social work and sociology from Pacific Lutheran University. Her passion for justice was ignited at a young age, driving her to address the injustices she witnessed.

Washington Statewide Reentry CouncilThe Washington Statewide Reentry Council, established in 2016, advocates for laws, investments, and attitudes that improve reentry outcomes and increase public safety by supporting equitable and humane reentry systems. The council is composed of 15 members, including formerly incarcerated individuals, legal professionals, and representatives from community and state-led organizations. They recently adopted a new strategic plan focusing on relationships, expanding the Council’s presence in prisons and jails, and ensuring the voices of the incarcerated are heard.

Restorative JusticeOne significant aspect of Ms. McFeat’s work is the integration of Restorative Justice practices. Restorative Justice focuses on repairing harm and creating space for transformation, involving both the person who committed the harm and the person harmed. This approach emphasizes accountability, healing, and the reintegration of individuals into their communities. Her experience as a restorative justice circle practitioner has shown the potential for these practices to reduce recidivism and foster a more humane justice system.

Listening circles, another tool used by the council, gather feedback from the incarcerated about their experiences and needs. These circles help identify key issues such as employment and housing, which are critical for successful reentry. By engaging directly with those impacted, the council can develop more effective strategies to support reentry.

Reentry 2030The future of reentry in Washington State looks promising with a new endeavor called Reentry 2030 project. This initiative, supported by Governor Jay Inslee, aims to create a human-centered, coordinated, and transparent reentry system. Washington State is one of the few states to embark on this national initiative, which brings together the Reentry Council, Department of Corrections, the governor’s office, state agencies, tribes, and both currently and formerly incarcerated individuals to work towards common goals.

In conclusion, Ms. McFeat’s work with the Washington Statewide Reentry Council highlights the importance of restorative justice and human-centered reentry practices. We wish to thank Executive Director McFeat for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast #67 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Tamika Nelson, Director of the San Diego County Probation DepartmentThis episode of “Justice Speaks” continues the series of interviews with individuals who impact the Justice System by supervising individuals under community supervision in the form of probation or parole. In this episode, we interview Tamika Nelson, the Director of the San Diego County Probation Department. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

A Journey of CommitmentChief Nelson tells us that her path to becoming a leader in probation was influenced by her mother. Her mother, a nurse working within the juvenile justice system, suggested that she apply for a group counseling position while she was attending law school. Upon gaining the position, Chief Nelson describes how her initial goal of becoming a family lawyer changed as she came to understand that she could directly help families involved in the justice system as a probation officer. So, after her graduation, rather than practicing law, she became a probation officer. She explains how she rose through the probation system until she became the first female chief of the San Diego Probation Department.

From Supervision to EngagementChief Nelson emphasizes a crucial shift – from simply supervising offenders to actively engaging with them. This philosophy recognizes the importance of building relationships, fostering trust, and inspiring hope. Probation officers are not merely enforcers of rules; they are partners on a journey towards positive change.

She tells us that the San Diego County Probation Department prioritizes a holistic approach. Recognizing that the root causes of criminal behavior are often complex and multifaceted, the department focuses on addressing underlying issues. This may involve mental health support, substance abuse treatment, or educational opportunities.

Collaboration is KeyChief Nelson highlights the need for collaboration across various stakeholders. She believes it is essential for effective community supervision to work with community partners, social service providers, and formerly incarcerated individuals. She expands upon this concept explaining how the departments collaboration generates synergy between her probation department and law enforcement agencies

Technology and InnovationNext, she talks about the unprecedented challenges posed by the COVID pandemic which created the need for innovative solutions. Chief Nelson makes clear that probation departments have embraced technology to facilitate remote engagement with clients. While the human connection remains irreplaceable, technology serves as a valuable tool for maintaining support and supervision.

The Future of ProbationChief Nelson paints an optimistic picture of the future of probation. She says probation officers will continue to play a vital role in ensuring public safety while promoting rehabilitation and reintegration. She believes that by fostering genuine connections, inspiring hope, and working collaboratively with the community, probation officers can be agents of positive change.

Becoming a Probation OfficerFinally, for those considering a career in probation, Chief Nelson’s message is clear. It’s a complex and demanding profession, but one that offers immense personal gratification. Probation officers are individuals who believe in the power of second chances and possess the dedication to see people transform their lives. They are the embodiment of hope and belief, inspiring positive change within communities.

We wish to thank Chief Nelson for sharing her insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast #66 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A conversation with David Rogers, Training Director for the NNCOEThis episode of Justice Speaks continues its series of interviews with individuals who are impacting the Justice System. In this episode, we interview Mr. David Rogers, who is the Training Director for the National Native Center of Excellence (NNCOE) about justice issues in tribal courts. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

David Rogers’ Journey to Tribal Public SafetyMr. Rogers begins our interview by talking about pivotal junctures in his career. Expecting to become a rancher while still in high school, his trajectory veered towards public speaking and education when the superintendent of Nez Perce National Historical Park recruited him as a speaker. This, in turn, led to an offer from the United States State Department to speak about Native American culture in the United Kingdom for eighteen months.

He tells us that upon his return, while doing summer work at the park, an Idaho state police trooper convinced him to undertake a career in law enforcement. This decision led to a series of diverse law enforcement roles, including as a police chief for both local and tribal communities. This, in turn, led him to his current position as a speaker and educator about tribal public safety.

National Native Center of ExcellenceMr. Rogers discusses his tenure at NNCOE and how it developed pivotal programs like the National Indian Youth Justice Academy, addressing the imperative of early recruitment and preparation for Native American youth, and the Basic Tribal Probation Academy, a first-of-its-kind program educating tribal probation officers with essential supervision skills, including addressing addiction and mental health challenges.

During our interview, he discloses that he is preparing to embark on a new chapter by joining Justice and Security Strategies Inc. (JSS). He tells us that the new company will strengthen tribal public safety initiatives, seamlessly integrating past accomplishments with exciting new endeavors.

History and the Law for Tribal Sovereignty Next, Mr. Rogers tells us about the historical and legal underpinnings of tribal sovereignty, explaining the dynamics that shaped tribal justice. He explains that prior to the federal enactment in 1953 of Public Law 280, which granted certain states criminal and civil jurisdiction over tribal reservations, tribal autonomy prevailed, epitomized by landmark cases like Ex parte Crow Dog, 109 U.S. 556 (1883). However, federal interventions, typified by the Major Crimes Act, tempered tribal jurisdiction over major offenses, channeling them into federal purview.

Mr. Rogers then discusses the ramifications of the decision in McGirt v. Oklahoma, 140 S. Ct. 2452 (2020), which caused a paradigm shift in tribal jurisdictional boundaries and legal precedents. We review the impact of McGirt, which held that the state of Oklahoma had no jurisdiction over tribal lands, causing an increase in the dockets for both federal and tribal courts.

Exploring the evolution of tribal courts, Mr. Rogers traces the history of tribal courts and how they have embraced restorative justice paradigms, rooted in indigenous traditions of healing and rehabilitation. He conveys the transformative potential of restorative justice within tribal courts and the broader implications for the criminal justice systems within the United States.

Wrap UpIn conclusion, Mr. David Rogers tells us about the problems facing tribal justice systems, including the lack of personnel and resources, while emphasizing the tribal commitment to justice within Native communities.

We wish to thank Mr. Rogers for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast #65 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

At the 24th Annual Training Conference for the Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals (MATCP), Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) Co-President David Wallace was elected MATCP’s President. Founded in 1996, MATCP serves as the voice for the 210 Treatment Courts in the state and works with the courts, the private sector, and the public on educating and advancing Treatment Courts. MATCP also provides education and training for Treatment Court teams at its annual conference and other training programs held around the state. Treatment Courts are court programs that hold individuals with a substance abuse disorder accountable and address the underlying conditions through intensive supervision and long-term treatment.

“I am extremely honored to be elected to this position. MATCP is at the forefront of supporting Michigan’s Treatment Courts and it is recognized as one of the premier Treatment Court Associations in the country. MATCP is always striving to ensure that all of Michigan’s Treatment Courts are effective in changing behavior, reducing recidivism and saving lives.”

Mr. Wallace is the Co-President for JSI, and he is also the Chief Assistant Prosecuting Attorney for Huron County, Michigan, USA. Mr. Wallace represents the prosecutor’s office on the local DWI Court team in his area. Before returning to prosecution, Mr. Wallace was the Senior Director for the National Center of DWI Courts (NCDC) at the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (Now known as All Rise) in Alexandria, Virginia. He traveled around the country and internationally training court teams on how to develop and run DWI Courts.

As the Chief Assistant Prosecutor, Mr. Wallace performs a full range of professional assignments in the prosecutor’s office with a focus on felony (the more serious) cases. He has been in the Huron County Prosecutor’s office for over 9 years, and he has over 30 years of experience as an assistant prosecutor through his employment with other prosecutor offices, including Eaton County, Calhoun County, and the Prosecutor’s Association of Michigan (PAAM) in Lansing. After working for 7 years at PAAM, he became the Senior Director at the NCDC.

According to Mr. Wallace: “I have been very fortunate to see the changes that Treatment Courts bring and to have a hand in developing them. Treatment Courts are making a difference across the U.S. and beyond.”

About JSI: It is the mission of the Justice Speakers Institute to be the essential resource on justice issues worldwide. JSI’s vision is to Promote Justice and the Rule of Law worldwide.

The post JSI Co-President David Wallace Elected President of MATCP appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A conversation with Scott Taylor, former Director of the Multnomah County Department of Justice“Justice Speaks” continues its series of interviews with individuals who impact the Justice System by supervising individuals under community supervision in the form of probation or parole. In this episode, we interview Mr. Scott Taylor, who brings a wealth of experience to our interview as the former Director of the Multnomah County Department of Justice (Portland, Oregon). This episode is brought to you by Reconnect.

Scott Taylor’s Journey into Criminal Justice SupervisionScott Taylor begins by telling us about his journey into the world of criminal justice supervision. Reflecting on his early ambitions, Director Taylor shares how he initially dreamed of pursuing a career as a police officer. However, through a series of unforeseen events, he stumbled upon an internship opportunity at a local probation office. He tells us that despite his initial reservations, he decided to seize the opportunity, viewing it as a stepping stone toward his ultimate goal of law enforcement.

Probation’s Parole Officer’s Vital RoleAs he delves into his experiences as a Probation Officer, Director Taylor discusses the multifaceted nature of the role, emphasizing the importance of empathy, communication, and resourcefulness in effectively supervising individuals under community supervision. He then talks about the complexities and challenges of navigating the justice system from the point of view of a probation officer.

Throughout the interview, Mr. Taylor underscores the vital role of probation and parole officers in promoting rehabilitation, reintegration, and community safety. He emphasizes the need for a holistic approach that addresses the underlying factors contributing to individuals’ involvement in the justice system, advocating for a shift toward a more compassionate and rehabilitative model of supervision.

AI’s Future Impact on Criminal JusticeIn a thought-provoking discussion about the future of criminal justice, Director Taylor touches upon the role of Artificial Intelligence (AI) in transforming the landscape of supervision. He suggests that AI can revolutionize data analysis, risk assessment, and decision-making processes within probation and parole services. Director Taylor says that AI-powered tools may be able to analyze vast amounts of data to identify patterns and trends, allowing probation and parole officers to make more informed decisions and allocate resources more effectively. He emphasizes the importance of integrating AI technologies into supervision practices while also acknowledging the ethical considerations and potential challenges associated with their implementation.

Looking ahead, Mr. Taylor foresees a time where probation and parole services are more accessible, equitable, and responsive to the diverse needs of the communities they serve. As part of this future, he calls for greater investment in alternative sentencing programs, mental health resources, and social services, recognizing the pivotal role these initiatives play in breaking the cycle of incarceration.

Wrap UpIn conclusion, Director Taylor offers his insights into the evolving landscape of criminal justice supervision, highlighting the transformative potential of compassionate and community-centered approaches.

We wish to thank Mr. Taylor for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast #64 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Dr. William Morrone on Opioid Use DisordersThis episode of Justice Speaks focuses on the disease of Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) and the intersection of law and medicine, and its impact on the criminal justice system. In this episode, we interview Dr. William Morrone, a physician specializing in Substance Use Disorder (SUD) medicine. This episode is sponsored by Indivior.

Dr. Morrone’s Path to Treating Substance use DisordersDr. Morrone speaking at the APPA conference.

Dr. Morrone’s path into SUD medicine wasn’t straightforward. While he aspired to pursue a career in medicine, financial concerns delayed his dream of becoming a doctor. Finally, however, he was able to enter Michigan State University College of Osteopathic Medicine. It was then, during his internship in Michigan, that he first encountered the profound problem of Substance Use Disorders.

Upon graduation, Dr. Morrone pivoted towards family medicine, saying that he recognized its capacity to address substance dependency, particularly among teenagers and pregnant women. However, he soon realized the limitations imposed by traditional medical practices, which led him to specialize in SUD medicine. He has spent the last 20 years at Covenant Hospital in Saginaw, where he tells us that he spearheaded innovative approaches to treating pregnant women struggling with SUD. Dr. Morrone relates how he helped found the Recovery Pathways Behavioral Health Institute, which specializes in adolescent SUD treatment.

In the process of learning about SUD, Dr. Morrone became board certified by the American Board of Addiction Medicine and the American Society of Addiction Medicine. Dr. Morrone then tells us about how he began working with courts, and in particular with specialty Treatment Court programs. He states that serving as an “Adult Drug Treatment Court incubator,” he lends his expertise to courts seeking to integrate evidence-based practices into their frameworks.

Substance Use Disorder is a Brain Disease During our interview, Dr. Morrone advocates for the recognition of SUD as a brain disease rather than a moral failing. He notes that reframing dependency through a medical lens underscores the importance of comprehensive, evidence-based interventions to promote lasting recovery. He then points out that overdose is a major problem not just in general, but particularly for those individuals suffering from Opioid Use Disorder (OUD) upon release from incarceration. The doctor goes on to talk about the medications Naloxone and Nalmefene that can be used to help prevent overdose deaths.

Medication-Assisted Treatment MattersHe says we all must understand the importance of Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT), particularly for OUD. His advocacy for the integration of MAT into the criminal justice system is both pragmatic and compassionate. He argues that providing individuals with access to life-saving medications like buprenorphine improves outcomes, which he says is a paradigm shift in how we approach dependency within the confines of justice. He goes on to describe the systemic barriers that persist, hindering the widespread adoption of MAT in correctional settings, which he says underscores the urgent need for policy reform.

Wrap UpIn conclusion, Dr. Morrone says his participation in initiatives like the American Probation and Parole Association’s training on MAT exemplifies his commitment to effecting tangible change.

We wish to thank Dr. Morrone for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Indivior for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #63 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Exploring the Consequences of ADA Lawsuits by the Department of Justice Involving the Courts and MOUD.By Hon. Geno Salomone (Ret.) and Hon. Brian MacKenzie (Ret.)

As of this article’s writing, there are still a large number of judges who persist in withholding medications from individuals with opioid use disorder (OUD), arguing that it merely replaces one addictive substance with another.[1] Similarly, certain probation or corrections departments and officers refuse to permit medications for opioid use disorders (MOUD), citing the need to maintain a drug-free environment within their supervision program.[2]

While the notion that providing individuals under court or community supervision access to Medications for Opioid Use Disorder (MOUD) is simply exchanging one drug for another might appear intuitive at first, this belief fails to acknowledge that OUD is a disease; just as diabetes, hypertension, and cancer are diseases. And just like many diseases, treating OUD may necessitate medication.

Opioid Use Disorder is a disease. Just as diabetes, hypertension, and cancer are diseases

The evidence gleaned from existing studies sheds light on the significant benefits of the understanding that OUD is a disease, particularly in the context of incarceration. Studies have demonstrated that providing MOUD to individuals while incarcerated leads to greater continuation of treatment upon release, and fewer relapses and/or deaths from overdoses after release.[3] It also leads to decreased rates of substance use and recidivism.[4]

Given these findings, it is evident that treating OUD as a medical condition is more effective than demanding abstinence. Furthermore, the failure to do so raises significant legal issues for governing agencies that deny individuals suffering from OUD access to prescribed medications. That denial may constitute a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).[5]

The Americans with Disabilities ActThe Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken the position that the ADA protects people in recovery from OUD who are not engaged in illegal drug use, and who are taking medication prescribed by their doctor. Based on this position, the DOJ has launched numerous investigations and legal actions against businesses, government agencies, and court systems.[6]

The DOJ has launched numerous investigations and legal actions against businesses, government agencies, and court systems.

Two recent actions by the DOJ involved the trial court systems in Pennsylvania and Massachusetts. The DOJ initiated investigations against individual Treatment Courts in both states based on complaints from participants that the Treatment Courts were denying them access to MOUD.[7]

Massachusetts Treatment Courts Investigated In Massachusetts, the DOJ asserted its investigation found that some Treatment Courts were requiring participants to cease using lawfully prescribed MOUD without an appropriate medical assessment. Additionally, non-medical treatment court personnel were pressuring participants to use naltrexone exclusively, without a proper medical assessment or consideration of alternative treatments like buprenorphine or methadone.[8]

Based on the investigation, the DOJ entered into settlement negotiations with the Massachusetts trial court system.[9] The resulting written agreement required all Massachusetts Treatment Courts to adopt a new OUD policy.[10] This policy ensured that medication decisions are made solely by licensed prescribers or opioid treatment programs, without interference from Treatment Court personnel.[11] Courts were also prohibited from expressing preferences for specific medications or mandating one over another.[12] The state was required to monitor compliance, implement corrective actions for deviations, and handle complaints through the Office of Workplace Rights and Compliance.[13] Finally, an annual report on complaints and resolutions had to be submitted to the Chief Justice of the Trial Court, who, in turn, was required to submit a report to the DOJ.[14]

Pennsylvania Treatment Courts SuedIn Pennsylvania, the DOJ claimed their investigation revealed problem-solving courts within the Unified Judicial System of Pennsylvania (UJS) denied individuals access to MOUD. [15] The alleged discriminatory ADA practices were identified in two Treatment Courts, where probationers were mandated to cease MOUD, and in one instance, a participant was ordered to stop MOUD entirely.[16] Discriminatory ADA policies were also alleged in six other Treatment Courts.[17]

Unlike Massachusetts, the UJS refused a settlement offer, and the DOJ filed an ADA action in federal court.[18] After much pre-trial maneuvering, a settlement was reached.[19] Under the terms of the settlement, UJS courts agreed to pay $100,000 in damages to court participants.[20] They also committed to promoting new ADA policies and training of court personnel on anti-discrimination requirements related to OUD.[21] Additionally, all Pennsylvania criminal judges and Treatment Court professionals were required to receive training on ADA and MOUD.[22] The courts named in the amended complaint were mandated to implement a “robust” ADA anti-discrimination policy for MOUD, with an additional requirement that the UJS recommend that all trial courts in Pennsylvania adopt the same policy.[23] Furthermore, the UJS agreed to provide training to all trial judges and Treatment Court professionals on ADA and MOUD and to report any complaints regarding MOUD access to the DOJ.[24]

Take Note and Take ActionThe DOJ’s settlements with Pennsylvania and Massachusetts should serve as a cautionary note for courts and community supervision departments across the country, signaling that non-compliance with federal disability rights laws invites litigation. It is incumbent upon courts and correctional departments to proactively address OUD inequities to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their legal or disability status, receive effective care. Failure to heed this warning not only jeopardizes the health of individuals with OUD, but also likely violates the ADA.

[1] Medication Assisted Treatment in US Drug Courts

[2] Id.

[3] Effectiveness of MAT in prisons and jails, Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, Moore et al, Volume 99, April 2019.

[4] Id.

[5] M.C v Jefferson County (N.D.New York) (May, 2022)

[6] See for example: US v. City of Baltimore, 845 F. Supp. 2d 640 (2012); Pennsylvania Dep’t of Corr. v. Yesky, 524 U.S. 206, 210 (1999); Strickland v. Delaware County, Dist. Court, ED Pennsylvania, (2022); and No. 2:22-cv-00709-MSG, PA Settlement Agreement

[7] See: MA Settlement Agreement; and PA Amended Complaint

[8] https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/us-attorney-s-office-settles-disability-discrimination-allegations-massachusetts-trial

[9] MA Settlement Agreement

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

[13] Id.

[14] Id.

[15] No. 2:22-cv-00709-MSG (E.D. Pa.) PA Amended Complaint

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] No. 2:22-cv-00709-MSG (E.D. Pa.) PA Amended Complaint

[19] PA Settlement Agreement

[20] Id.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

The post Is Your Treatment Court at Risk? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Marcus Hodges from CSOSA This episode of Justice Speaks continues its series of interviews with individuals impacting the Justice System, turning to those who supervise individuals under community supervision in the form of probation or parole. In this episode, we interview Marcus Hodges, Associate Director of CSOSA (Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency) in Washington, D.C. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

Mr. Hodges offers a unique perspective on his journey into the field of criminal justice supervision as he recounts his initial uncertainty about his career path, recalling his college days when he was more focused on pursuing a football career rather than academic pursuits. However, a criminal justice class sparked his interest in corrections. He tells us about the impact of a warden who passionately spoke about the field of corrections, leaving a lasting impression. Inspired, Mr. Hodges decided that he wanted to become a prison warden. After graduating, Mr. Hodges tells us about his first job which was at the Virginia prison where the warden, who inspired him, had worked. He talks about how he then worked in the Virginia correctional system for the next twenty-five years. Reflecting on his career trajectory, he acknowledges that his correctional journey was serendipitous, describing it as “backing into” his current role at CSCOSA.

What is CSCOSA? When asked what CSOSA stands for, Mr. Hodges explains that the letters are the initials for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency. He goes on to describe how it is one of the few federal agencies with a completely local mission involving the supervision of individuals who were convicted of crimes in Washington, D.C.

He notes that the CSOSA Director is a six-year presidential appointment and that he was appointed to the position of Associate Director by Richard Tischner, the current Director.

Throughout the interview, Mr. Hodges highlights the importance of CSOSA in overseeing offender supervision. He emphasizes the transformative potential of rehabilitation and reintegration programs, highlighting the agency’s efforts to support individuals as they navigate the complexities of the justice system. He conveys how promoting positive outcomes for those under supervision is an important goal in his agency’s commitment to public safety and community well-being.

Technology and Community SupervisionMr. Hodges then discusses the importance of technology in community supervision. He talks about his belief that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will change how data is understood and used in supervision. He believes it will change how corrections work.

Looking ahead, Mr. Hodges shares his vision for the future of CSOSA as a more comprehensive and holistic approach to offender supervision. He emphasizes the need for continued innovation and adaptation within the agency, recognizing the evolving landscape of criminal justice reform. He stresses the importance of collaboration and partnership with stakeholders, acknowledging that meaningful change requires a collective effort and shared responsibility.

Wrap UpIn conclusion, Marcus Hodges’ candid reflections reflect his commitment to the principles of justice and rehabilitation which underscores the importance of an individual in fostering positive change within the criminal justice system.

We wish to thank Mr. Hodges for sharing his insights and experiences on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #62 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The evidence supporting the importance of procedural fairness (PF) in maintaining judicial legitimacy and improving defendant outcomes is significant. PF refers to the idea that courts and other criminal justice institution can create a process that is universally perceived as fair and impartial using four key components: voice, respectful treatment, neutrality, and trust. Substantial evidence establishes that individual defendants are more likely to accept judicial decisions and obey court orders if a judge applies these four key principles.[1] The evidence underscores that courts and other criminal justice institutions can establish a process perceived as fair and impartial across the board by integrating four key components.

Research exploring the effects of procedural fairness (PF) within the realm of probation supervision is more limited. But a recent study conducted by the Urban Institute suggests, that integrating PF principles into community supervision can result in reduced rates of probation violations.

Integrating PF principles into community supervision can result in reduced rates of probation violations.

Another study suggests that the components of PF, in a supervision setting, depend upon the supervising officer developing a rapport and building communication with the probationer.[2] Probation officers who prioritized building a rapport with individuals on their caseloads (offered courteous greeting, practiced active listening, solicited input in case planning, etc.) had lower recidivism on their caseloads than officers who employed a more surveillance focused approach.[3] When a probationer feels that they have the ability to participate in a case by expressing their viewpoint, there is a reduction of re-arrests and positive drug tests.[4]

On the other hand, a sense of unfairness often emerges from the surveillance-focused approach to supervision, which characterized the “crime control” era of the United States criminal justice system.[5] This approach prioritizes enforcement over rapport-building in the probation role, emphasizing compliance through the threat of revocation and subsequent incarceration.[6] This approach, according to one study, increases the number of violations.[7]

Combining Procedural Fairness and Probation So, what are the best ways to promote PF in probation supervision? It starts with constant, clear, and understandable communication. Probation officers should provide written materials that clearly describe probation conditions, and then review the written material with the probationers using plain language to ensure that they understand the information provided. They should also carefully explain to the individuals how violations can result in sanctions or revocation of their probationary status. This ensures they understand what is expected and the consequences of noncompliance. The goal is to improve compliance and reduce confusion.

Next, it is important to allow for meaningful participation by giving those on probation a voice. This means providing them an opportunity to participate in the decision-making process and ensuring that their voice is heard. Probationers should be given the ability to express their concerns, and present evidence and arguments in support of their case. Providing that opportunity ensures that probationers feel heard and valued in the decision-making process. This in turn will increase compliance and improve outcomes.

It is important to allow for meaningful participation by giving those on probation a voice.

Respectful treatment is the second key component of promoting PF in probation supervision. Treat probationers with courtesy and dignity, avoiding stigmatizing language or behaviors, and listening to their concerns or questions. Giving praise is a particularly important way of showing respect to probationers, which has been shown to improve outcomes.[8]

Neutral decision-making is another key element in promoting PF in probation supervision. This means using objective criteria and evidence to make decisions. Personal biases or prejudices can and do reduce supervision success.[9] Therefore, it is important to ensure that clear explanations for decisions are given and understood. Neutral decision-making can help to ensure that probationers are treated fairly and equitably, regardless of their individual characteristics or circumstances. It can also help to reduce the potential for bias or discrimination in decision-making.

Finally, earning probationers trust is critical to supervision success. Probationers who believed that their supervisor can be trusted to be fair and treated them with respect reported fewer days of drug use 18 months into the program.[10] A probation officer must be knowledgeable about the individual. A study of Judges established that those with high positive attributes (i.e., judges who were respectful, fair, attentive, enthusiastic, consistent, predictable, caring, and knowledgeable) were able to establish trust, which led to reduced participant drug use when compared to judges who were not considered to be trustworthy.[11] Judges who were highly trusted were almost twice as effective in preventing drug use as judges who were not highly trusted.[12] This same effect can occur for probation officers.

Enhancing successful outcomes, such as behavior change and reduced recidivism, holds the potential for a significant reduction in crime.

Over 4 million reasons to incorporate Procedural Fairness with ProbationFor supervision to be successful, a probation officer must provide probationers with an opportunity to voice their concerns and a sense that they’re treated with respect by a neutral and trustworthy authority. Considering the substantial number of individuals under community supervision in the United States—approximately 3.5 million on probation and another 878,000 on parole, as reported in a 2020 study—enhancing successful outcomes, such as behavior change and reduced recidivism, holds the potential for a significant reduction in crime.

[1] https://justicespeakersinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CR52-1WhitePaper.pdf

[2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/full/10.1073/pnas.2018036118

[3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8277152/

[4] https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/are-supervision-practices-procedurally-fair-development

[5] Paul Cromwell, The Evolving Role of Parole in the Criminal Justice System, in CRIME & JUSTICE IN AMERICA: PRESENT REALITIES AND FUTURE PROSPECTS 405, 411 (Wilson R. Palacios et al. eds., 2d ed. 2002)

[6] Id.

[7] https://www.jsatjournal.com/article/S0740-5472(15)00187-7/fulltext

[8] Id.

[9] https://justicespeakersinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/CR52-1WhitePaper.pdf

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Id.

The post Incorporating Procedural Fairness into Community Supervision appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Discussion about Community Supervision with Ms. Veronica Cunningham, Executive Director of the APPAVeronica Cunningham

This episode of Justice Speaks continues its series of interviews with individuals impacting the Justice System, turning to those who supervise individuals under community supervision in the form of probation or parole. In this episode, we are interviewing Veronica Cunningham, Executive Director of the American Probation and Parole Association (APPA). This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

Initially, Ms. Cunningham describes her career trajectory as a probation/parole officer, through her unplanned beginnings, describing her decision to go to college to be either a journalist or actor. However, in college, she was inspired by a roommate’s passion for helping criminal justice-involved individuals and switched her major to criminal justice, ultimately obtaining her master’s degree in criminal justice.

A Historical ContextAfter Ms. Cunningham graduated, she got a job in the sheriff’s department in Louisiana. This led to a job supervising individuals on probation and parole in the city of New Orleans. When her new husband took a job in Texas, she went with him leaving New Orleans to move to Texas. There she found a job supervising parolees. Over the next twenty years she rose through the ranks to become a department director supervising over 2400 employees.

As Ms. Cunningham approached the conclusion of her tenure in the Texas parole system, she made the decision to retire. Just prior to her retirement, she attended an APPA training institute. At the institute, the current director of APPA announced his retirement. A number of people at the training suggested she apply for the position. She did and was selected as the new executive director.

For Ms. Cunningham, becoming the executive director of APPA was, in a real sense, a continuation of her commitment to the field of community supervision and her belief in the importance of continuous learning and development.

The Importance of Community SupervisionRecognizing the critical role of community corrections in rehabilitating individuals and enhancing public safety, Ms. Cunningham expresses the need for more support and training for probation and parole officers. She highlighted initiatives that provide training opportunities for small departments and advocating comprehensive support systems for officers to ensure effective community supervision.

Furthermore, Ms. Cunningham stresses the importance of mental health and well-being among probation and parole officers, understanding that healthy officers are better equipped to provide support to individuals under their supervision. She advocates for a shift towards hiring individuals who have an affinity for the work and are committed to second chances, rather than solely based on qualifications.

Future Thoughts for APPALooking to the future, Ms. Cunningham sees a shift towards a more holistic approach in community corrections, emphasizing cultural humility and a recognition of the need for change in certain practices, such as excessive revocations for technical violations. She believes that fostering a supportive and inclusive culture within probation and parole departments will be vital for the field’s advancement.

In summary, Ms. Cunningham’s journey and insights offer a glimpse into the evolving landscape of community corrections. She emphasizes the need for effective training, mental health support of community corrections officers, and cultural humility, all while stressing the importance of continuous improvement and adaptation within the field to better serve communities and individuals under supervision.

We wish to thank Ms. Cunningham for joining us on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #61 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Navigating Illinois’ Problem-Solving Courts with Judge Holmgren and Matt KinderThis episode of Justice Speaks continues our series of interviews with State Treatment Court Association leaders. Today, we interview Judge Janet Holmgren, the president of the Illinois Association of Problem-Solving Courts, and Matt Kinder, one of the association’s conference coordinators. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

Judge Holmgren, with an impressive 16-year tenure presiding over Problem-Solving courts, provides a unique perspective rooted in years of dedication. She discusses her early endeavors as the presiding judge in the juvenile abuse and neglect courtroom, focusing on rehabilitation and remediation, particularly concerning untreated or under-treated substance abuse and mental health concerns. It wasn’t until 2007, with her pivotal role in the adult Mental Health Court, that Judge Holmgren embraced a dedicated Treatment Court rotation, amplifying her commitment to transformative justice.

She emphasized the nuanced challenges of Mental Health Courts, contrasting them with their Drug Court counterparts, shedding light on these specialized courts’ intricate nature.

Meanwhile, Matt Kinder reveals that he is a licensed clinical social worker with nearly 15 years of clinical practice. He became familiar with Problem-Solving Courts while working at an agency for adults with severe and persistent mental illnesses, many involved in Judge Holmgren’s mental health court. His subsequent role at the Illinois Center of Excellence for Behavioral Health and Justice saw him collaborate with Problem-Solving Courts statewide, providing tailored training and annual conference coordination. When funding for the Center ceased, the association entrusted him with the conference coordinator role.

Illinois’ Pioneering SpiritIllinois emerges as an early trailblazer in Problem-Solving Courts, initiating its first adult Drug Court in the mid-1990s. Judge Holmgren highlighted 2013 as a landmark year, witnessing the merger of two organizations, birthing the Illinois Association of Problem-Solving Courts. The consolidation heralded a unified training era, with the annual conference standing as its cornerstone, orchestrated by a devoted team of volunteers.

Annual Conference: A Union of MindsAs Mr. Kinder discusses, the annual conference has witnessed significant growth, culminating in a gathering of over 500 attendees in 2022. Spanning three days in October, the conference brings together national and local experts who offer their educational insights to the attendees. The evening networking session emerges as a highlight, advancing statewide connections and nurturing relationships vital for effective Problem-Solving courts. This session allows the attendees to make new contacts, renew previous connections, and share new ideas on ways to be more effective in the courtroom.

Charting the Path AheadPeering into the future, Judge Holmgren envisions sustained conference growth, emphasizing Problem-Solving court team training needs. The board envisions bolstering its training capabilities and potentially hiring an executive director. One persistent goal revolves around training affordability, ensuring widespread access to expertise, while continuing a strong alliance with the state Supreme Court Administrative Office.

Navigating COVID-19The COVID-19 pandemic’s unforeseen challenges demanded flexibility. Judge Holmgren lauds the association’s resilience, transitioning the 2020 conference to an online conference, guaranteeing statewide training access. This virtual adaptation persisted into 2021, returning to an in-person conference in 2022.

In conclusion, Judge Holmgren and Mr. Kinder emphasized collaboration and statewide support, as the cornerstones advancing Illinois’ Problem-Solving Courts towards a brighter future.

We wish to thank Judge Holmgren and Mr. Kinder for joining us on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #60 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Gray Barton, Director of Problem-Solving Courts for MarylandIn this episode of Justice Speaks, we continue our series of interviews with State Drug Court Coordinators. Our focus in this edition is Mr. Gray Barton, the Director of Problem-Solving Courts for the state of Maryland. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

It Takes a FamilyGray Barton, Director

Mr. Barton shares that his involvement with Drug Courts began in 1999. Previously a treatment provider, he recognized a significant gap between treatment, reports, and probation, propelling him into the realm of Treatment Courts in Ohio. Taking a position with the new misdemeanor Drug Courts, Mr. Barton reached out to established Drug Courts in Ohio, seeking insights to shape their approach. He admits his time in Ohio has led him to be a Buckeyes football fan.

After 21 years in Ohio, Mr. Barton found himself wishing to be closer to his parents and extended family in Maryland. He began looking for work and found a position as the state Treatment Court Coordinator. While the career move was a significant one, Mr. Barton emphasizes that family proximity was the primary influence in his move. This familial pull has contributed to his enduring commitment to Maryland.

Educating Legislators and Teams about Problem-Solving CourtsWhile describing the multifaceted nature of his job, Mr. Barton explains how he manages over $8 million in grant funds. He discusses how his team allocates resources to local jurisdictions and also actively engages in advocacy and education with legislators, stressing the importance of face-to-face interactions during the brief nine-day legislative session. Mr. Barton highlights the significance of personal engagement thought-out the state of Maryland.

He then talks about how training and educating treatment teams throughout the year is another crucial aspect of the work. He notes the absence of a state association makes his team the de facto support system for Treatment Courts in Maryland. He discusses the challenges of adapting to virtual conferences during the COVID-19 pandemic, expressing relief at their unexpected success.

The discussion moves on to the growth and importance of Maryland’s Treatment Courts. Mr. Barton details the recent transition of the annual conference to virtual platforms, expressing gratitude for collaborative efforts with neighboring states like Delaware and Washington DC.

Being ProactiveStressing the value of in-person interactions, Mr. Barton notes that they encourage more engagement and fewer post-presentation email inquiries. He shares his proactive response to the pandemic, which involved implementing weekly phone conferences and transitioning to Zoom meetings for diverse training approaches.

Returning to Mr. Barton’s role, he explains the complexities of securing funding for Treatment Courts. While relying on state appropriations, he highlights diverse funding sources, including federal grants and local contributions that support Maryland’s Problem-Solving Courts.

The conversation touches on the evolving nature of Treatment Courts, with Mr. Barton emphasizing continual growth and education. He details a recent self-assessment initiative and the implementation of a dashboard to monitor best practices, fostering healthy competition among Treatment Courts.

A Closing Note of ThanksAs the interview concludes, Mr. Barton reflects on his proudest accomplishments, attributing success to the dedication of local teams. He emphasizes the transformative impact Treatment Courts have on individuals and expresses optimism for the future. Mr. Barton’s journey, marked by resilience, adaptability, and a commitment to excellence, stands as a testament to the enduring success of Maryland’s Problem-Solving Courts.

We wish to thank Mr. Barton for joining us on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #59 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This past October, the Justice Speakers Institute’s (JSI) three partners — David Wallace, Mack Jenkins, and Brian MacKenzie —conducted a series of training programs, presentations, and interviews in Australia, beginning in the city of Hobart and then later in the city of Melbourne.

Training in Hobart, TasmaniaHobart is the capital and largest city in Tasmania, which is both an island and a state under Australia’s constitution. The island, about the size of Ireland, lies southeast of the continent and is said to be either surrounded by the Southern (Antarctic) Ocean or to have the Pacific on its east and the Indian Ocean on its west. It is most widely known as the home of the endangered Tasmanian Devil and also as the birthplace of Errol Flynn and Hobart is at the southern tip of the island. It usually doesn’t land on the itinerary of American tourists, but this was an exciting visit for us, because we could promote improvements in the worldwide justice system, honor our dear friend Judge Peggy Hora, who would have said she was an honorary Tasmanian, and, even for a chance to see the devils.

JSI at the day long training sessionJSI and some of the Just Desserts members

The partners were invited to Tasmania by Just Desserts, a non-profit organization created to support the Court Mandated Drug Treatment program. The organization asked the partners to develop a day-long training session on these lifesaving courts for criminal justice professionals and also give two evening presentations.

The day-long training was entitled Therapeutic Jurisprudence and More in the Courts and it was attended by approximately fifty criminal justice professionals. The first evening presentation was a Panel Discussion for Judicial Officers and lawyers on ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence and More‘ at the Law Society of Tasmania. After the presentation, former Chief Magistrate Michael Hill (Ret.) and Liz Moore hosted dinner for JSI’s partners and many of those who attended that presentation.

JSI on the Leon Compton morning radio show

The second evening presentation was open to the general public and it was held at the University of Tasmania Law School, with members of the Tasmanian Parliament in attendance. Just Desserts also arranged for the JSI partners to appear on an Australian Broadcasting Company morning radio show to discuss how Treatment Courts could reduce crime in Tasmania and broader in Australia.

Radio interview below:

Thankfully, JSI was able to spend plenty of time with, among others, Deputy Chief Magistrate Michael Daly, Former Chief Magistrate Michael Hill (Ret.), and Liz Moore, Case Manager Well Being Support, Tasmanian Department of Justice, before jetting off the Australian mainland.

Training in Melbourne, VictoriaMelbourne is a city filled with great food, coffee, and wine. As a result, it was a place that our friend Peggy both loved and presented in many times. It is part of the State of Victoria, which runs along the southeast coast of Australia. So, when Ms. Elanor Peattie, the Associate Director for Therapeutic Justice and Criminal Law for Victoria Legal Aid, reached out to request that JSI do two presentations in Melbourne, we were delighted to agree. Ms. Peattie, working with Dan Nicholson – Executive Director, Criminal Law, Kate Bundrock – Director, Summary Crime & Therapeutic Justice, and Giuliana Bell – Executive Assistant, Criminal Law, for Victoria Legal Aid, set up a breakfast question and answer presentation followed by a webinar. They invited the leaders of the Drug Court movement within the State of Victoria, including several judges and magistrates, along with defense lawyers and other criminal justice professionals, for the breakfast presentation.

JSI in Melbourne

During the breakfast, the JSI partners took lots of questions about how Drug Courts function and how they reduce crime and recidivism. The audience was focused and attentive, with many staying past the start of the workday to ask questions. Afterward, the partners did a webinar entitled ‘Therapeutic Court and The Role of The Defense Lawyer.’ The webinar discussed best practices and Drug Court teams with a special emphasis on the role of the defense lawyer.

Thank youJSI is very grateful for the opportunity to present in Australia and we wish to express our gratitude to Just Desserts and Victoria Legal Aid for inviting us. We are also grateful to our departed friend Judge Peggy Hora, who blazed the way for us in the land down under.

JSI at the Tasmanian Law Society and an evening session at the Tasmanian Law School The post G’Day Mate, Training in the Land Down Under appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Judge Ziemian and Chief Justice Nadeau with the NEARCPIn this episode, Justice Speaks continues our series of interviews with State Treatment Court Association leaders, interviewing the President and 2nd Vice President of the New England Association of Recovery Court Professionals (NEARCP). This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

Judge Robert Ziemian (Ret.), is the President of the NEARCP. He began his remarkable career, as a Navy pilot before becoming a judge. He describes a pivotal moment in his judicial career when in 1992 a treatment provider’s revelation opened his eyes to the need for better cooperation between the justice system and the treatment community. This marked the beginning of his involvement in Drug Courts, driven by the desire to make the justice system more successful.

Justice Tina Nadeau, is NEARCP’s 2nd Vice President and is the Chief Justice of the Superior Court in New Hampshire and serves on the board of All Rise (formerly known as NADCP). She highlights her decade-long involvement with the Association. Justice Nadeau emphasizes the importance of collaboration and how Treatment Courts have made a positive impact on her state’s judicial system.

Judge Ziemian, because of his service, discusses his efforts to engage with veterans in his Veterans Court. He shares how wearing a specific hat has helped him connect with veterans and address the high suicide rate among veterans. This personal touch demonstrates the unique approach that Recovery Courts can take to address the specific needs of their participants.

Judge Ziemian and Chief Justice Nadeau with the NEARCPThe Creation of the NEARCPNext the conversation turns to the origins of the NEARCP. The association was founded in 2001 by a judge in Rhode Island who recognized the need for a regional organization. Being the only regional Drug Court Association creates unique complexities of working across different states with varying legal framework which both of them thinks strengthen the organization.

We then discuss the annual training conference organized by the association, held every November. They describe the meticulous planning involved, featuring breakout sessions, plenary speakers, and opportunities for professionals to share their expertise. They also discuss the challenges faced during the COVID-19 pandemic when the conference had to go virtual.

Diverse States in a Regional AssociationJustice Nadeau talks about the intricacies of dealing with diverse state laws within the association as part of NEARCP’s educational approach. She emphasizes the importance of adhering to national best practices while acknowledging that state laws may sometimes conflict. We then discuss ethical considerations, with an emphasis on respecting individual state rules.

The conversation touches on the unique funding situations in different states in New England and the challenges posed in operating rural Treatment Courts. Justice Nadeau discusses the need for more housing and transportation support for participants in New Hampshire. Then Judge Ziemian highlights the issue of resistance to change within Massachusetts.

Looking to the FutureAs the conversation nears its conclusion, Justice Nadeau envisions a future where Mental Health Courts are more integrated, and Judge Ziemian expresses his hope for greater collaboration among various courts to address family-related issues. They both reflect on the progress made in the Treatment Court movement and express their gratitude to the dedicated individuals involved.

In closing, both Judge Ziemian and Justice Nadeau share their passion for Treatment Courts, emphasizing their role in reducing crime, addressing underlying needs, and cutting costs within the justice system. They express their appreciation for the support of the Supreme Court Chief Justices in their respective states and their commitment to expanding the impact of Recovery Courts.

We wish to thank both Judge Ziemian and Justice Nadeau for sharing their unique experiences with NEARCP, and how it is changing criminal justice in the New England states. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #58 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Johanna Braud and Fletcher Hyacinth with Lousiana Supreme Court Drug and Specialty Court OfficeJustice Speaks continues its series of interviews with State Treatment Court Associations’ leaders and State Treatment Court Coordinators by interviewing Johanna Braud, the Statewide Coordinator for the Louisiana Drug and Specialty Courts office, and Fletcher Hyacinth, the Statewide Program Attorney/Manager at the Specialty Court office for the Louisiana Supreme Court. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

Johanna Braud

Ms. Braud explains that she comes from a corporate accounting background but shifted her career path when faced with long working hours that clashed with her responsibilities as a parent. She found her calling at the Jefferson Parish Human Services Authority, where she helped secure funding for adult and juvenile Drug Court programs. Fast forward a few years, and she’s been an integral part of the Supreme Court Drug and Specialty Court office for 21 years.

Fletcher Hyacinth

On the other hand, Mr. Hyacinth’s embarked on a journey that took him from the Caribbean to the United States in 1994. He pursued psychology as an undergrad and went on to law school at Loyola in New Orleans. Around 2005, he became involved in establishing a Drug Court program, initially feeling like a “lost ball in tall grass.” However, with support from All Rise, he received invaluable training and experience, serving in various roles within the program. Those roles included Drug Court coordinator, case management, drug testing, and even hearing officer. He gained a holistic understanding of the system, from the ground up, and built strong connections with participants and their families, navigating both triumphs and challenges.

On the Way to the LA Supreme CourtFor Johanna, her journey to the Specialty Courts’ office began over two decades ago when she joined the office with responsibility for its fiscal monitoring, tasked with ensuring that Drug Court programs managed their funding correctly. Her efforts were instrumental in organizing funding and establishing accountability. As the years passed, she climbed the ladder, becoming the Business Services Manager and eventually assuming the role of Director when her predecessor retired a year and a half ago.

Fletcher’s path to the Supreme Court took a different route. He joined the office 18 months ago, drawn by the flexibility and a lifelong dream of working for the Supreme Court. His transition has been eye-opening, exposing him to macro-level perspectives that contrast with his earlier micro-level experiences in Drug Courts.

They discuss the Louisiana Association of Drug and Specialty Courts (LADSC) which plays a pivotal role in enhancing Drug Courts, and partnering with the Supreme Court. They maintain an informative website (LADSC.org) and an active Facebook page to keep stakeholders updated. Additionally, they send out emails to notify professionals about upcoming trainings and events.

A Twist for the Annual Training ConferenceThe annual training, which previously took place in New Orleans, saw a unique twist in 2023. To accommodate participants from across the state, they organized three regional trainings, bringing the training closer to the professionals. This innovation allowed attendees to access valuable training without the added travel burden.

Down the Road for Louisiana’s Specialty CourtsSo, what’s on the horizon for 2024? Louisiana is planning to host its conference in the Lake Charles area, featuring speakers from various parts of the United States and leveraging insights gained from previous events. The focus is on providing comprehensive training that benefits professionals in the field.

During the discussion, they turn to Specialty Courts funding, explaining that funds comes primarily comes from an annual appropriation through the state legislature. It’s a blend of approximately 60% state general funds and 40% Federal TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) funds.

They go on to discuss how additional funding is crucial to expand the reach of Specialty Courts into parishes or judicial districts that currently lack access to these programs. Furthermore, there’s an opportunity to transform Drug and Specialty Courts into comprehensive Treatment Courts that triage individuals with mental health and substance use disorder issues, offering a single point of contact for tailored support.

Upcoming ChallengesAs for future challenges, communication and collaboration among the various state agencies and departments are areas that need attention. Strengthening these partnerships will enhance the effectiveness of Specialty Courts.

The conversation also touched on the resilience of Louisiana’s communities in the face of storms, drawing parallels to the resilience displayed by Drug Court participants who weather life’s challenges and find hope and transformation through Specialty Court programs.

A Closing Note of ThanksIn closing, Ms. Braud and Mr. Hyacinth emphasized the importance of collaboration, statewide support, and sharing success stories to create a brighter future for Specialty Courts in Louisiana.

We wish to thank Ms. Braud and Mr. Hyacinth for joining us on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #57 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Prosecutors for Prosecutors – Working to Save Prosecutors’ Lives in Afghanistan David LaBahn, President & CEO, APA

In this episode of Justice Speaks, JSI President David Wallace speaks with the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys’ (APA) President and CEO, David LaBahn about Prosecutors for Prosecutors and the work to literally save the lives of prosecutors and their families in Afghanistan.

The APA and others are working to save those individuals who worked for the Rule of Law in Afghanistan. This episode is a discussion about the work APA is doing for those prosecutors. The effort is called Prosecutors for Prosecutors.

About the APAThe episode starts with a discussion about the Association of Prosecuting Attorneys (APA). Founded in 2009, it is one of two national prosecutor associations, the APA and the National District Attorneys Association. APA focuses on bringing prosecutors and other justice system advocates across the country together to create safer communities for a just and equitable legal system. APA looks to develop and implement promising and best practices for prosecutors and others, always striving for prosecutorial excellence and doing justice.

APA has created a number of focused programs such as gun violence, human trafficking, child abuse, animal abuse, and domestic violence. APA has also set a number of committees and advisory groups designed to help lead a number of discussions, such as the role of prosecutors and a prosecutor’s independence to do the necessary work, and ultimately create safer communities.

Prosecutors for Prosecutors and The Rule of Law in Disrepair Prior to the United States leaving Afghanistan, prosecutors, judges, defense attorneys and others worked to establish the Rule of Law in Afghanistan, holding individuals for terrorism, murder, and other crimes accountable for their actions. At one time, there were approximately 6,000 people working for the Afghan Department of Justice. They were establishing the basis for the Rule of Law with approximately 60,000 people being held accountable for their crimes, locking up some very violent offenders. However, with a new regime in power, those who were prosecuted were released from prison and now they are looking for revenge. Additionally, the Afghan Department of Justice was dissolved.

After the U.S. left Afghanistan, APA has received hundreds of emails and messages from people “begging for their lives, please save us.” The messages are from individuals who worked for the Rule of Law, who worked to bring to justice those people who were creating havoc in Afghanistan. In examining the situation, the APA found that approximately 14 different organizations were working on bringing out various factions out of the country safely. The best organized one being the U.S. Military. However, those former justice officials and prosecutors were never U.S. Government contractors and therefore are not eligible under the Afghan Adjustment Act, which is the process to get some people out of Afghanistan. Thus, the Prosecutors for Prosecutors (PFP) campaign was established.

Goals of Prosecutors for ProsecutorsThe PFP has set three specific goals. First, to raise awareness – to get the message out that prosecutors are dying; prosecutors who worked to support the Rule of Law. Second, to put pressure on the U.S. Government to amend a pending bill, the Afghan Adjustment Act (AAA) and include those who worked for the Rule of Law. Third, to raise funds to get these individuals out of the country.

Working with others, the APA has identified 3,850 people and created a documented list, former employees of the Afghan Department of Justice and family members who need to be brought out for their safety. The 3,850 includes approximately 1,500 prosecutors who are under threats of violence against themselves and their families. At the time of this interview, there have been at least 30 prosecutors killed for doing their work and over 40 attempted assassinations and this is only over a two-year time period.

1. Messaging for ProsecutorsTo lead the work of the Prosecutors for Prosecutors, a Task Force was created. Made up of experienced and elected chief prosecutors, they have volunteered their time and effort to share the message that Afghan prosecutors are dying and need our support. The Task Force is also looking at finding jobs for any prosecutors who get out of Afghanistan, and to find ways to raise funds for this program.

2. The Afghan Adjustment ActThe Afghan Adjustment Act (AAA) is a federal bipartisan bill (S.2327/H.R.4627) that would provide a path to permanent status to tens of thousands of Afghans who were evacuated to the U.S. fallowing the fall of Kabul in August 2021. However, the bills do not cover those who worked to supported the Rule of Law effort in Afghanistan. As already noted, they were not U.S. Government Contractors.

It is anticipated that the AAA is coming up for a vote in the near future in Congress. It was not successfully passed in a previous effort. APA and others are working to amend the law and provide special visas that includes those who worked to establish the Rule of Law, primarily prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys.

3. Donations for Prosecutors for ProsecutorsA donation page was created to raise funds to get the prosecutors and their families out of Afghanistan. All told, it is estimated that it will take $15 million to get them all out, which breaks down to $10,000 for each Afghan prosecutor and the accompanying family members. This is not to get them all to the United States, this is just to get them out of the country where their lives are at risk.

Importantly, Mr. LaBahn noted that for every dollar donated for the PFP campaign, 100% of that donation will go towards the effort—none of the donation is for administrative costs. The APA Board saw the importance of this effort, heard the pleas for help, and approved using APA funds to carry on with the work being done.

To keep track and see how the money is being spent, it can be viewed at: APA-PFF.com under the tab “Transparency.” The PFP and the APA understand the need to be very transparent with the money being raised.

Other Supporting Agencies In addition to the Task Force, a number of other organizations, including State Prosecutor Associations, No One Left Behind, Jewish Humanitarian Response, and the International Association of Prosecutors to name a few of the supporting groups, are stepping up to support this lifesaving effort.

They MatterA webpage has been created on the PFP website listing those prosecutors and family members who have been murdered. This is done to honor their sacrifice with the knowledge and support of the surviving family members. This effort matters, these individuals matter, and this tragedy is happening right now.

There is also an effort to have a case filed in the International Criminal Court, the ICC. That requires the APA with assistance from the Afghan Prosecutors Association and others to document who has been murdered and why it happened, as well as who is still at risk. This requires that these cases be investigated and evidence found supporting any potential charges.

To get InvolvedWhile the campaign is “Prosecutors” for Prosecutors, anyone who wants to support prosecutors and help save lives can get involved. The PFP and the APA will take all the support it can get. Whether it is supportive messaging, or speaking with federal legislators, or making a donation, and so much more, it all matters. It can all make a difference.

And even those who would rather support more broadly the judges or defense attorneys, in addition to the prosecutors, a separate and broader coalition has been created called the Afghan Rule of Law Coalition for that very purpose.

To Learn MoreTo learn more about the PFP, where to donate or support the effort, go to: APA-PFP.org. To learn more about the APA, go to APAInc.org.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #56 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Conversation with Robert Mitchell, New Mexico’s State Drug Court CoordinatorJustice Speaks continues its series of interviews with State Treatment Court Associations’ leaders and State Treatment Court Coordinators by interviewing Mr. Robert Mitchell, State Coordinator for Drug Courts in New Mexico. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

The Journey BeginsMr. Mitchell’s career path started in Wisconsin, and then took him to Ohio, eventually led him to New Mexico, before entering the criminal justice arena, he worked extensively in faith-based institutions. However, his background in law enforcement, emergency medical services (EMS), and a stint in the Air Force kept him closely connected to crisis management. These experiences equipped him to handle critical situations, including mass school shootings.

The Path to Treatment CourtsHis career took a significant turn when he became the Director of the Alternative Sentencing Division for San Juan County, New Mexico. In this role, he oversaw a 28-day jail-based treatment center initially focused on alcohol-related issues. The success of this program prompted its expansion to address the methamphetamine crisis affecting women in the region. His dedication to rehabilitating individuals caught the attention of the New Mexico Department of Children, Youth, and Families where he was offered and accepted the governor’s appointment to work with long-term confinement facilities and reintegration centers for juvenile offenders. This in turned moved him in the direction of a career with Treatment Courts, aligning with his passion for criminal justice and behavioral health practices.

A Multi-Faceted RoleMr. Mitchell offers insights into his current role as the state coordinator for Treatment Courts. He describes the expansion of his team, now comprised of seven dedicated professionals, focused on serving Treatment Courts across New Mexico. Each team member plays a crucial role in ensuring that Treatment Courts have the resources they need to thrive.

He discusses the importance of in-person conferences and their impact on building connections within the Treatment Court community and reflects on past virtual conferences and the valuable interactions they facilitate.

Mr. Mitchell then describes the funding sources for Treatment Courts in New Mexico. He explains the state’s unique approach of allocating a portion of the liquor excise tax distribution to support Treatment Courts, ensuring stable funding even during challenging times.

He then shares his perspective on the greatest accomplishments of his office, highlighting the strength of his team’s expertise and their dedication to the Treatment Court philosophy. He also addresses the challenges faced by professionals in the justice system, who must juggle numerous priorities and expectations.

The Future of Treatment Courts in New MexicoLooking ahead, Mr. Mitchell envisions New Mexico Treatment Courts as leaders in fostering cooperative efforts to integrate best practices across the justice system.

Finally, He goes on to discuss the shift toward a broader view of therapy within the justice system, emphasizing the importance of addressing individuals’ needs with precision and responsibility.

A Closing Note of ThanksWe wish to thank Mr. Mitchell for joining us on Justice Speaks. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #55 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks continues its series of interviews with State Treatment Court Associations’ leaders and State Treatment Court Coordinators by interviewing Chief Judge Brenda Weaver, Judge Charles Auslander, III, and Ms. Taylor Jones, the Executive Director of Georgia’s Council of Accountability Court Judges (CACJ). This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

The post Podcast Episode 54 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks continues its series of interviews with State Treatment Court Associations leaders and State Treatment Court Coordinators, interviewing Tammy Westcott the Director of the Criminal Justice Division for the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health & Substance Abuse. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect. 

The post Podcast Episode 53 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In this episode, Justice Speaks continues a series about State Treatment Court Associations.  This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.  In this episode, we interview Judge Cristina Jaramillo (Ret.) representing the New Mexico Drug Court Professionals Association (NMADCP).

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #52 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

(Click on the above arrow to listen to the audio.)

An Interview with Darrin Grondel and Brian Swift, about the National Alliance to Stop Impaired Driving (NASID)In this episode of Justice Speaks, JSI President David Wallace speaks with Darrin Grondel, Senior Vice President of Traffic Safety for Responsiblity.org and Brian Swift, Spokesperson for the National Alliance to Stop Impaired Driving (NASID).

About Darrin GrondelMr. Grondel is the Senior Vice President of Traffic Safety for Responsibility.org and he serves as the Director for NASID. Prior to that, he worked 25 years for the Washington State Patrol, retiring as a Captain. While with the Patrol, the Governor appointed him the Highway Safety Director for the Washington Traffic Safety Commission. As Darrin declared, from all that he has done in his career, the issue of traffic safety is very near and dear to his heart.

About Brian SwiftStarting off, Mr. Swift noting that he is a “yooper;” a person who lived in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. He grew up in Escanaba, Michigan, did his undergrad studies at Michigan State University, and he got his Master’s Degree at Northern Michigan University. Brian notes that his career took him into politics, initially working for a congressional representative from the Upper Peninsula, and then working for Michigan Governor John Engler for 10 years. Currently he lives and works in Fort Worth, Texas, working for physicians doing public relations and communications.

About Responsibility.org 30 years ago some leading alcohol distillers established Responsibility.org, with the goal of preventing underage drinking, eliminating impaired driving and encouraging adults to make responsible choices on alcohol. It provides strong messages on underage drinking prevention and the impact of alcohol on a young brain. Responsibility.org has a wealth of content on prevention, treatment, and research on the issues of impaired driving and underage drinking. One of the education programs it created is Ask, Listen, Learn. It is designed to help parents to address underage drinking with their children. While alcohol is the primary focus for Responsibility.org, with the increase of marijuana legalization and drugged driving overall, it has now incorporated information about the challenges of cannabis (marijuana) and the underage brain, driving while under the influence of marijuana, and the broader issue of drugged driving.

About NASIDResponsibility.org began working with Brian Swift and his efforts to expand an oral fluid test pilot project in the State of Michigan. The oral fluid test allows law enforcement officers to test a driver and determine if there are other active drugs besides alcohol in the person’s body. Similar to a preliminary breath test used to test for alcohol, this test looks for a limited number of drugs, such as cannabis, to see if there is another reason the person may be showing signs of impairment. The test does not give a number as a result; it just gives a positive or negative response to the presence of certain drugs. Prior to offering this test, the officer would typically go through the standard three phases of an impaired driving investigation: 1. Vehicle in Motion, 2. Personal Contact, and 3. Pre-arrest Screening.

Recognizing the importance and benefit that this test can have on “drugged” driving, Responsibility.org began working with Brian and Michigan’s coalition and worked to take it nationally. This could help address the growing challenge of multi-substance impaired driving.

Brian Swift’s StoryThomas and Barbara Swift, Brian Swift’s parents

Brian got that phone call that no child, no parent, no sibling ever wants to receive. He got a call from law enforcement that told him his father was dead and his mother was in intensive care from a car crash. A person drove through a stop sign while smoking marijuana on a suspended driver’s license, and hit the car his father was driving and his mother was a passenger in. She later succumbed to her injuries passing away three days later. Of course, there was the emotional impact of the death of his parents and then the necessity of going to court when the driver of that vehicle was prosecuted for their deaths. Ultimately, the driver got a minimum of 4 years in prison.

Because of his background in politics, Brian was determined to ensure that the deaths of his parents did not happen in vain. He spoke with political figures he knew, and the Michigan State Police, all to find out what tool(s) was missing in combating drugged driving. What he learned was the need for an oral fluid test for some of the basic drugs people were using and then driving while impaired. That led to Michigan passing the first law in the country approving the use of an oral fluid test. Now, oral fluid testing is spreading across the nation. As Brian indicated, because multi-substance impairment is becoming common, using an oral fluid test should be a normal part of any impaired driving investigation.

Impaired Driving is more than AlcoholYears ago, alcohol was the focus with impaired driving. However, that has changed over time where now, it is common for an impaired person to use more than one substance, such as drinking alcohol and smoking marijuana or ingesting some other drug all during the same time. A few years ago, a study was completed that examined the public’s perception of impaired driving due to alcohol versus being impaired because of other drugs. The study demonstrated that impaired driving due to alcohol has a significant stigma attached to it. It is socially unacceptable. However, that is not the perception for drugged driving. A person can be impaired through other drugs, legal or illegal, and not be the stereotypical falling down drunk. The person can still be impaired, possibly the person’s reaction time has decreased, or depth perception is worse, or the person feels lightheaded, each factor causing a person to be impaired. But since that person is not “falling down drunk,” it doesn’t seem as important or as dangerous to the public—even though it is. Darrin pointed out that fifty percent of fatal crashes where there is a known drug test result, there is a high percentage of drivers who have alcohol along with another drug(s) present as well.

As previously noted, an oral fluid test result is positive or negative for the presence of a drug. It does not give a number, and that is important because, unlike alcohol and .08 or similar numbers, there is no specific number that demonstrates a person is impaired when using marijuana or other substances. It is up to the officer’s observations.

Since we have the technology to use an oral fluid test to assist law enforcement, Brian asks an important question: Why aren’t we using it, since it can help save lives? The technology is designed to detect someone who is impaired, possibly, before that person kills someone else. It is clear that we can do better.

NASID Partners and BeyondNASID has grown in its scope and activities, bringing on board a number of members, including MADD, Abbott, Intoxalock, Uber, SADD and others to share the message and the work. NASID also has “Allied members” such as NSA (National Sheriff’s Association), We Save Lives, NDAA (National District Attorneys Association), the Kari Ann DeMott Foundation and others. Allied members are unable to lobby and do not advocate for legislation at the state or federal level.

NASID is not taking a position on the legalization of marijuana, that is not the issue. However, NASID is taking a position on impaired driving because of marijuana or other drugs. If a person wants to consume those drugs, that is different from consuming it and then driving impaired. Thus, NASID is looking at how to respond to the whole person, such as:

• What is the best way to educate the public;
• How can law enforcement officers be more effective in responding to drugged driving;
• What is the appropriate punishment to someone who has driven impaired;
• How can the courts effectively change a person’s behavior who may have a substance use disorder.

In addition, to further assist officers, the Cannabis Impairment Detection Workshop Guide was created so officers have the tools to identify, understand and overcome issues related to drugged driving.

One big bit of news shared during the episode is that the United States Department of Transportation has been working on a final rule to allow using oral fluid testing on commercial vehicle operators, such as semi-truck drivers or through the FAA and pilots or the Federal Railroad Administration. The rule has now been approved.

ConclusionBrian points out that “the train has left the station.” It is time to step up, and for states to enact appropriate legislation and increase education efforts. He wants to know “What plan is in place?” when states are addressing drugged driving. Brian has testified at a number of state hearings and he has spoken with victims, and families of victims, to aid them in moving forward and to help determine the next steps.

While impaired driving is about more than alcohol, the bottom line is that when someone takes another person’s life because that person was impaired, it doesn’t have anything to do with gender or race or other societal issues. As Brian declared, the issue of impaired driving is a non-partisan issue that we should all be able to get behind. It is all about saving lives.

To learn more about NASID, click HERE.

Additional ResourceYou can also watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #51 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Legal training tends to emphasize a set of criteria for evaluating fairness that differs in some notable respects from those the public uses when deciding what is fair and what promotes trust. That gap creates the potential for misunderstanding when judges set out to define what the public expects and the quality of the interaction by any judge to the public dialogue. Judges should periodically consider how their training and experience on the bench shapes their concept of fairness in ways that litigants and the public might not share. It is possible, as well, that a disconnect can be present even when judges talk to other lawyers about fairness and how adherence to procedural justice principles can generate trust in the judiciary.

There is little research available to explore the possibility that can be used to study how judges, the legal profession, and the public think and talk about fairness in different ways.[i] There is only one survey, to my knowledge, that can test for such differences. The Judicial Council of California commissioned a survey in 2005 of the state’s lawyers as part of a project that also surveyed the State’s residents. Many of the same questions were asked of a random sample of lawyers and of the public. The public survey included 2,400 randomly selected California residents; the attorney survey included 524 attorneys in active practice (drawn randomly from a list of all such attorneys provided by the State Bar Association).

Trust and Confidence in the CourtsThe public and attorney surveys focused on the relative importance of six criteria as predictors of “trust and confidence” in the California courts. They were:

• Respect: Being treated with dignity and having one’s rights respected
• Neutrality: Believing that decision-makers are honest and impartial, using facts
• Voice: Having an opportunity to express one’s views to the decision-maker
• Benevolence: Decision-makers perceived as caring, sincerely concerned about individuals
• Distributive justice: Results in outcomes that are fair
• Performance: Instrumental concerns related to efficiency and ease of court business

For the analysis, attorneys were distinguished by the extent to which they had courtroom experience, separating practicing lawyers into those with “low” levels from those with “high” levels of interactions with the courts. (To see the underlying statistical analysis, go HERE.)

The main findings include:

First, legal professionals evaluate judges differently than do members of the public in fundamental ways. Attorneys give greater weight than the public to distributive justice and to instrumental court performance. Procedural fairness criteria also are important, but to a lesser degree.

Second, instrumental concerns were of importance only to attorneys; public perceptions of court characteristics such as perceived timeliness did not influence levels of trust.

Third, attorneys were not monolithic in their views. Attorneys with low levels of involvement with the courts rely more strongly on procedural justice concerns more than do lawyers with higher levels of involvement. In this, “low involvement” attorneys are perhaps closer to the general public in their focus on procedural justice consideration when evaluating the courts.

Fourth, distributive justice appears to be more important to attorneys with a high level of involvement than those with low levels of involvement). The respective beta weights (which is the measure used to establish the strength of the relationship to trust), were (0.34 versus 0.18), and satisfy readers who are statistically minded.

Fifth, attorneys with low levels of court interaction tend to rely more on procedural justice than on distributive justice in evaluating how much to trust the courts. In deciding on how much to trust the courts, both “high involvement” attorneys and litigants with high levels of direct court experience relied less than others on procedural justice criteria. This has a parallel in the public, where repeat court users tended to think in some ways like “high involvement attorneys.[ii]

Sixth, the concept of procedural fairness itself can be divided into two sets of concerns. One set measures “quality of decision-making” and the other “quality of treatment.” In testing their relative importance, the statistical model of what predicts trust in the courts included the impact of distributive justice and instrumental importance on levels of trust. “Listening carefully” and “protecting rights” were statistically significant criteria, while “respect,” which was a statistically significant factor among the general public, was not.

In sum, the survey findings suggest that legal professionals evaluate judges differently than do members of the public, and that neither the public nor the legal profession are monolithic in their approaches to what makes courts trustworthy. Attorneys gave greater weight to distributive justice and to instrumental court performance than the general public. But the details matter in deciding on what this means for efforts to build trust in courts. Those attorneys with the least involvement with the courts tend to rely more heavily on procedural justice concerns in predicting trust than do their “high involvement” counterpart. It is possible that any “high involvement” effect might be particularly strong among trial court judges.

ConclusionThese survey findings are offered as food for thought. The results come from one survey in one state. They may or may not generalize to the situation in 2023 or to other states. But it is noteworthy that evidence exists that when members of the public, lawyers, and judges think about and talk about fairness and trust there might be some failures to communicate.

[i] Rebecca Hollander-Blumoff (2017) “Fairness Beyond the Adversary System in Procedural Justice Norms for Legal Negotiation, Fordham Law Review 85, 5, p. 2089.

[ii]See Rottman, D., Hanson, R, Mott, N. and L. Grimes, “Perceptions of the Courts in Your Community: The Influence of Experience, Race and Ethnicity.” Final Report of the National Center for State Courts to the National Institute of Justice, US Department of Justice for additional analysis on this point.

The post Does “Procedural Justice” Mean the Same Things to Judges and to the Public? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

(Click on the above arrow to listen to the audio.)

An Interview with the ADCPAIn this episode, Justice Speaks continues a series about State Treatment Court Associations. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect. In this episode, we interview Judge Andrew Gill and Ms. Janet Hawley representing the Arkansas Drug Court Professionals Association (ADCPA).

Leadership in ADCPA Judge Gill is the current president of ADCPA and Ms. Hawley is the Drug Court Coordinator for the State of Arkansas.

Judge Gill has been a Circuit Court (general jurisdiction) judge for three years and he presides over Perry and Pulaski counties which encompasses the city of Little Rock as well as one of smallest counties in Arkansas. As a result, his docket is a mix of urban and rural cases. Prior to that, he spent eight years as a District Court (limited Jurisdiction) judge in Perry County where he grew up. Before becoming a judge, he was an assistant prosecutor in Saline County where as part of his duties he was assigned to the Treatment Court cases. He did not start out to be a lawyer, but discovered there not a wide range of job opportunities for individuals with philosophy degrees.

Ms. Hawley is the state Drug Court coordinator at the Administrative Office of the Court for Specialty Courts (AOC). She has worked in and for Specialty Courts for twelve years. Like Judge Gill she started working with Specialty Courts in Pulaski county for four years. From there she moved to the Specialty Court in Saline County. After working in Saline County she took a position with the AOC where she has been for the last five years.

Judge Gill started working with Specialty Courts when he was a prosecutor and when he became a general jurisdiction judge he became the backup judge for the Specialty Court in Pulaski County. He became a board member of ADCPA when he was a prosecutor and remained on the board as a Judge. The Association has a view that the president should be a judge as it helps with the legislature and encouraging other judges to be involved. He recently stepped forward to become the president.

The ADCPA Annual ConferenceMs. Hawley then discuss how the AOC partners with ADCPA. Her office supports the Association’s events, particularly the annual conference. She describes how the ADCPA started in 2007 and the current Chief Justice John Dan Kemp was one of the early board members.

Judge Gill then discusses how an individual becomes a member of the association by attending the conference. He noted that the ADCPA had their largest conference ever in the week prior to our interview. He mentions how they missed two years dues to COVID and goes on to describe how they restarted in-person attendance in 2022.

Ms. Hawley then explains how the two day conference works. To start each day, they have a plenary session and then for the afternoon, they have breakout tracks for veterans, juvenile, adult and DWI/Drug Courts. She says the most moving part of the conference is the Parade of Graduates. She describes the success of several of the graduates.

Judge Gill explains that most of the information about the conference is shared internally, but that they do have a Facebook page and the AOC has a dedicated page about the conference and Specialty Courts. He goes on to discuss how the ADCPA is working on expanding services for its members, including new forms for specialty courts and creating mentor courts to assist newly forming courts. Arkansas now has Drug Courts in fifty of the seventy-five counties with a total of one hundred and five Specialty Courts.

Successes and Challenges Judge Gill says the greatest accomplishment of the Association is the expansion of their membership. He goes on to explain that their greatest challenge is funding for the courts, particularly for the public defenders.

Ms. Hawley agrees that funding is a challenge and goes on to explain another challenge is keeping up with the continuing evolution of Treatment Courts. New research and best practices continue to move the courts forward. However, she believes the number one issue is that they are not able to provide the necessary education to keep up with the research on best practices. The AOC has evaluated twenty-five of the specialty courts in the last year.

Finally, Judge Gill expects the ADCPA to continue to grow and for the Specialty Courts to become more uniform in their practices. Ms. Hawley too is excited about the growth of specialty courts, mentioning how the Chief Justice supports the expansion. She see the rural courts as a growth area.

We wish to thank Judge Gill and Ms. Hawley for sharing their unique experiences with ADCPA and specialty courts in Arkansas. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can also watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #50 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Have you ever heard of the “Daubert/Frye” test? The apparent merging of the Frye and Daubert standards reflects a certain confusion that exists on the appropriate legal standard for the admission of scientific evidence, particularly in criminal cases. While the standard for the admission of scientific evidence can vary widely from federal courts to state courts and from state to state, every jurisdiction in the United States relies on either the Frye or the Daubert standard.[1]No jurisdiction has a Daubert/Frye standard.

Frye v. United StatesThe Frye standard is named after the case of Frye v. United States.[2] In Frye, the D.C. Appellate Court considered an appeal from a defendant convicted of second-degree murder. The appeal was made on the sole grounds that the trial court erred when it did not allow an expert witness to testify about the result of a systolic blood pressure deception (polygraph) test. The lower court refused to admit the result of the polygraph test as it did not have significant general acceptance in the scientific community. In upholding the trial court, the three judge panel ruled that polygraph testing had not gained enough “standing and scientific recognition among physiological and psychological authorities” to justify its admission as evidence in courts of law. This short 641 word opinion, became“a landmark in the law of evidence and one of the most cited cases in the history of American law.”[3] By 1979, the Kansas Supreme Court wrote that the Frye test was the scientific evidentiary standard in almost all of the courts in the United States.

Science Bench Book for Judges

The Frye test is fairly straightforward, as described in the Science Bench Book for Judges, the proponent of novel scientific evidence was required to show general acceptance in the relevant scientific community (and also, as with any evidence, relevance, proper foundation, and that the novel scientific evidence was not otherwise excluded from evidence). If a judge determines that there is general acceptance, the evidence is to be admitted.

Daubert v. Merrell Dow The Frye Standard wasn’t meaningfully challenged until 1993 in the case of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceutical.[4]In Daubert, the United States Supreme Court held Frye had been supplanted by Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence:

“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.”[5]

Federal Rules of Evidence 702

The court then set forth what it termed non-exclusivefactors to determine the admissibility of expert evidence. These factors included: whether the theory or technique used by the expert has been tested, whether the theory or technique has been subject to peer review, the potential rate of error associated with the theory or technique, and whether the theory or technique is generally accepted within the relevant scientific community. So, under Daubert, the court was required to evaluate the scientific evidence itself.

Another key difference between the two standards arises over the question of admissibility. Frye only applies when the evidence is based on new scientific principles or techniques. If the scientific evidence is based on well-established principles or techniques the court simply admits it. Daubert, on the other hand, requires that the judge become the gatekeeper for the admission of scientific evidence each and every time.

Many state jurisdictions have shifted to the Daubert Standard. This shift appears to have occurred due to Daubert’sallowance of a broader range of admissibility for scientific evidence. Recently, however, the Daubert Standard has come under attack on the grounds that it is too subjective, causing inconsistent appellate rulings. This has caused some scholars to argue for the creation of a new standard.

Scientific Evidence Must be Reliable and TrustworthyWhatever standard is applied the goal must be the same, ensuring that scientific evidence offered into evidence is reliable and trustworthy. This is all the more important as there have been concerns raised about the lack of consistency in the admission of scientific evidence, between civil and criminal cases. Also, experts have criticized certain types of forensic evidence, such as bite mark analysis and hair analysis, which they claim are not based on reliable scientific principles, should not be admitted in court. These concerns have led to calls for greater scrutiny of scientific evidence in the way that scientific evidence is evaluated in the courts.

In order to address these concerns, both the Daubert and Frye standards must be applied in such a way as to ensure that the admission of scientific evidence is reliable and trustworthy. While there is no Daubert/Frye test, each individual standard must be applied in a way that leads to just and fair decisions and outcomes.

[1] For in-depth discussions on the admissibility of scientific evidence and the two legal standards, read more in the Justice Speakers Institute’s Science Bench Book for Judges, 2d ed.

[2] 293 Fed. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)

[3] Justice Speakers Institute, Science Bench Book for Judges, pg. 223.

[4] 509 U.S. 579 (1993)

[5] Id.

The post Ensuring Reliable and Trustworthy Scientific Evidence in the Courts appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Introduction: The Emergence of Community Courts Community Courts are of interest to trial judges for two main reasons. First, they significantly improve court outcomes such as recidivism rates and failure to appear rates.[i] Second, they can build successful and enduring court/community engagements that result in higher levels of public trust. Both the better defendant outcomes and improved public trust are largely attributable to the role of the procedural justice principle in their design and operation.

Community Courts began as a way of redressing some of the problems created by 20th Century reform. Consolidation and centralization of trial court systems distanced trial courts in most American cities from where people lived.[ii] The ambitions of trial court reformers were largely realized as courts became more efficient and more user friendly. But public opinion surveys dating back to 1977 show no corresponding increase in public trust in the courts, or even awareness the reforms had occurred.[iii]

What Makes a Court a Community Court?Community courts take on multiple forms. Some are stand-alone courthouses located in specific neighborhoods to address local concerns. Others operate out of the jurisdiction’s main courthouse, although they might have links to specific geographic areas.

What they share is the presence of:

• Community Engagement: Initially through a process for identifying and prioritizing the problems the new court should give this a priority in its design. Once established, a community court continues to give voice to the community in revising its focuses and assessing its successes and failures.
• Collaboration: Bringing together justice players (including prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers, and court managers) and potential external resources from groups such as social service providers, residents, victims’ groups, and schools) to improve trust between citizens and government.
• Judicial Buy-In: The judge should be someone open to the methods and purposes of a community court, comfortable with its intention and methods, and willing to serve as the public face of the court.
• Individualized Justice: The adoption of evidence-based risk and needs assessment instruments to link offenders to individually tailored community-based services (e.g., job training, drug treatment, safety planning, mental health counseling) where appropriate.
• Offering social and treatment programs in the court building and, if possible, open to use by local residents.
• Accountability: Employing community restitution mandates and regular compliance monitoring—with clear consequences for non-compliance—to improve the accountability of offenders.

My review of the process by which courts are planned and evaluated is based on the experiences of two community courts that were appraised in an in-depth multi-year, multi-method, multi-organization evaluation. They are: The Midtown (Manhattan) (opened in 1993)[iv] and the Red Hook Community Justice Center (opened in 2000 ).[v] Both courts continue to meet their founders’ intentions and they are identified here as MCC and RHCJC, respectively.

The Planning ProcessBoth Community Courts opened after lengthy and intensive efforts to determine the needs and priorities of the residents and businesses, criminal justice agencies, along with consultation with locally based service providers. Both courts located treatment and other service providers within the courthouse. Both courts in their sentencing practices took advantage of existing programs designed to serve the community and residents in need of treatment or social services.

The differences between the two communities shaped each court’s planning and evaluation processes. Both had specified geographic areas to serve: MCC serves the middle-class residents and retail businesses in Midtown and RHCJC serves an area in which 80 percent of residents live in public housing.

A. Planning MCC: Through discussions and independently guided focus groups the preferences of the commercial community emerged as street prostitution, illegal vending, and quality of life issues. Local and city-wide media were used to spread the word about the reasons for opening a community court in Midtown. Owners of business located on the main commercial avenues near the court were individually visited by a representative from the court. Teams of urban ethnographers were engaged to monitor the responses to the court by those involved in criminal activity.

RHCJC: A lengthy consultation process found that the residents were concerned particularly with housing (80% of the residents live in public housing), juvenile crime, and minor drug offences. Planners and court officials met regularly with an array of community groups and local service providers to obtain their perspectives on what the court should be doing. Randomly selected residents were interviewed face-to-face by participants in a youth outreach program in advance of the court’s opening. The planning process led to the criminal court judge to being cross assigned to hear housing and juvenile matters in addition to a standard docket of low-level misdemeanors.

B. Evaluation MCC convened a second round of professionally guided focus groups approximately one year after the court opened, asking many of the initial round questions. The focus groups then added new questions looking at community change, knowledge of the court, approval of the main features of the court, and the public’s willingness to pay for the court’s innovative features. Where possible, the participants in the first round of focus groups participated in the second round. Approximately three years after MCC was opened a professional survey outfit interviewed randomly selected residents in the communities where the court was established to serve.[vi]

The RHCJC project team spoke several times with local leaders about their experience with the court and what they and their neighbors thought about it. The same team of urban ethnographers used by MCC was asked to find out the “word on the street” reactions to. and opinions about, the court from residents who were likely to be involved in or knowledgeable about illegal activities. Analysis of arrest records found that arrest levels were unchanged much over the court’s initial 10 years, in marked contrast to the neighboring areas where arrest levels increased. Interviews and observations indicated the Community Court judge, who had presided since the court opened, was widely known because of his frequent appearances at local events and at public meetings, and frequently seen walking through the neighborhood, especially at lunchtime. Several times the judge adjourned a housing case so he could personally see the state of the apartment in a lawsuit that pitted a resident against the NY Housing Authority.[vii]

Implications for JudgesThe evaluations of the Community Courts point to directions for how courts and individual judges can signal to the general public that they are respectful, neutral, careful listeners, and benevolent decision-makers, thus satisfying the four elements of procedural justice.[viii] Few courts will be able to devote the time and money required to replicate the planning and evaluation processes used in MCC and RHCJC.[ix] But judges and court administrators can benefit from materials produced by and for those courts to obtain practical insights and ideas for what is possible and desirable in their jurisdictions. The Executive Summaries of the independent evaluation reports are a good starting point. Both the Center for Justice Innovation and the National Center for State Courts can provide information and assistance to any court interested in exploring the potential of a Community Court in their jurisdiction. Judges currently or previously assigned to a Community Court can be contacted to answer questions for judges that a group of evaluators, nearly all non-lawyers, might not have considered.

Other help is available. The Community Court experience resulted in preparation of toolkits and guidebooks that offer step-by-step guidance on everything from deciding whether a Community Court is viable in your jurisdiction to evaluating the court once it is opened. The potential payoff is large. The RHCJC quickly came to be regarded as a community institution, in sharp contrast to how the local police were viewed. More importantly, the judge and the court came to be seen as local institutions, not as a part of a large and distant central courthouse. It was their court. Both courts through their planning and evaluation processes demonstrated that a court planned and operated using procedural justice principles leads to higher levels of public trust by the public-at-large.

[i] Rottman Court Reform agenda

[ii] Michael Willrich (2003), City of Courts: Socializing Justice in Progressive Era Chicago, Cambridge Historical Studies in American Law), describing how hundreds of local courts were consolidated into a single downtown location.

[iii] Court Outreach to Minority Communities: Methods Used, Lessons Learned, and Transitioning from Outreach to Engagement

[iv] D. Rottman, “Court Outreach to Minority Communities: Methods Used, Lessons Learned, and Transitioning from Outreach to Engagement,” Briefing Paper for the National Advisory, Community Engagement in the State Courts, October 2015.

M. Sviridoff, D. Rottman R. Curtis, Center, (2000) Dispensing Justice Locally: The Implementation and Effects of the Midtown Community Court. New York: Routledge.

Tyler, T and J. Sevier (2014), “How do courts create popular legitimacy? The role of establishing the truth, punishing justly, and and/or through just procedures. Albany Law Review 77, 1095-1137 (“Legitimacy can motivate engagement and thereby help communities to build themselves socially and economically,” found on page 1030.

[v] C. Lee, F. Chessman, D. Rottman, R. Swaner, S. Lambson and R. Curtis (2013). A Community Court Grows in Brooklyn: A Comprehensive Evaluation of the Red Hook Community Justice Center: Executive Summary, National Center for State courts and the Center for Court Innovation.

The post Judging in a Community Court: How to Demonstrate Procedural Justice to an Attentive Public appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

An Interview with Briana McCulloch, Executive Director of the Kailee Mills FoundationIn this episode of Justice Speak, JSI President David Wallace speaks with Briana McCulloch, Executive Director of the Kailee Mills Foundation.

Briana McCulloch, Executive Director

Ms. McCulloch was born and raised in Texas. She went to college, majoring in finance and she started her career in accounting, but quickly realized that she wanted to do something more meaningful and make a difference for others. She then took her degree and her skills, and went to work for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. While working for this non-profit, she recognized her desire to continue her work serving others, and to make a difference in the world. She realized that wherever she works, it would have to be more than a “job,” it would have to have meaning. She learned more about non-profits and established a social-media marketing company.

Then, after the Kailee Mills Foundation was established, Ms. McCulloch became the Executive Director. As she stated, it was as if her life had transpired in a way to give her the needed skills to run the Foundation.

About Kailee Mills Kailee Mills was Ms. McCulloch’s niece, who was killed on October 28, 2017, in a traffic crash. Kailee was in a car with three other friends going to a nearby Halloween party, approximately a mile away. Kailee was sitting in the back seat of the car, and decided to take a picture of herself and her friend. She unbuckled her seat belt and in that second, changed the lives of so many people. At that moment, the driver, who was going too fast for a curve, lost control and went off the road. The car hit a culvert, flipped, and ejected Kailee. Kailee was killed on impact. Her friends in the car were able to walk away from the crash with minor injuries. Because of that, Kailee’s family knew that she would have been fine, except for her taking her seat belt off.

A couple of days later, Kailee’s father was driving by the spot where Kailee died, which is only approximately 500 yards from their home, and he saw a large number of students there. He stopped, got out, and spoke with them about Kailee and what happened, and the importance of wearing a seat belt.

It was so well received that he began looking at the statistics for seat belt fatalities, seeing that it was a significant issue that he felt was not being talked about. Kailee’s family believed that the issue needed to be discussed and awareness raised. The family created the seat belt ribbon and started talking about the issues with the community and other students. It was so well received, that they were asked by the Texas Department of Transportation to speak about seat belt safety during the “Click it or Ticket” campaign. The message and Kailee’s story went viral, resulting in the most successful campaign for Texas in the 17 years of the campaign’s existence.

About the FoundationInitially, the work of the Foundation was accomplished by volunteers and their efforts, but it was soon recognized that to continue spreading the word and sharing the message, the Foundation needed to grow. It was at that point that Ms. McCulloch became the Executive Director (right before the pandemic happened). But in a short time, the Foundation has grown exponentially with a small team to share the load, all working to save lives.

The Foundation has a number of different programs, with the main one being seat belt awareness. The mission of the foundation is to prevent traffic fatalities and injuries by educating the public on seat belt safety through school programs, community outreach, and awareness campaigns.

A second program for the Foundation is “Kailee Cares Family Assistance.” The Foundation understands what a family has to go through when experiencing loss and hardship from a fatal or non-fatal traffic crash. Because of that, the Foundation helps with grief counseling, funeral costs, medical costs, meals, care packages, and more. It is focused on responding to what the family needs, and to let that family know they are not alone and that there are people out there who understand and care.

A third program is a college scholarship. But to get the scholarship, the student has to do a seat belt awareness campaign as part of the application. This requires the student to learn about what it means to wear a seat belt, and to raise awareness in the community. This year, the Foundation is able to give a student a full ride scholarship.

Seat Belts and the Importance of Wearing ThemGlobally 750,000 people die in traffic crashes every year when they don’t wear their seat belts. In the United States, approximately 46, 000 people die annually in traffic crashes and half of those died because they didn’t buckle up. The public perception is that everyone is wearing their seat belts, however, Ms. McCulloch believes that most people are wearing their seat belts – most of the time. Kailee was wearing her seat belt, until she took it off to take a picture of her and her friend. It is not uncommon for someone to make an excuse such as: I’m close to home, it’s just a short trip, I’m not going that fast, I’m just getting something from the back seat. But that is still a chance to be hurt or worse, such as Kailee. Ms. McCulloch points out that 90% of the teen fatalities from traffic crashes happened when they were not wearing a seat belt.

It was also noted that when sitting in the back seat, it is just as important to wear a seat belt. A person can be ejected, or it is possible to become a “weapon” to everyone else in the vehicle. When not wearing a seat belt, that person can fly in any number of directions within the vehicle, possibly hitting other passengers or the driver causing their injury or death. It is just as important when doing a ride share such as in an Uber ride.

Foundation ActivitiesIn school programs, the Foundation will do specific programs to raise awareness and educate the students. This includes group discussions and seat belt checks in the school parking lot. The Foundation will do pre and post evaluations and as a result of the program(s), they see a significant increase in awareness and understanding, with students saying they will start wearing their seat belts. At one school, they only did a seat belt check, while providing information to the students in the vehicles, and then saw a 17% increase in wearing seat belts. The effort is to get the students to understand that they are not invincible.

The Foundation also works with 1st responders such as law enforcement, paramedics, medical personnel, fire department. Ms. McCulloch noted that 1st responders are seeing the injuries and fatalities first hand. It can be very traumatic to those individuals as well as families – 1st responders are seeing others on their worst day. Some law enforcement officers, instead of a ticket, are giving out information from the Foundation to also raise seat belt awareness. As Ms. McCulloch notes, it is not about the ticket, it is about the person’s life.

The Seat Belt RibbonSeat Belt Ribbon

The symbol representing the Foundation is a seat belt ribbon that was created by the Foundation. It looks like a seat belt that is about to be clicked together. Initially, the color of the seat belt was pink to signify the loss of a daughter. However, it was decided to change the color to mint green as there wasn’t another awareness campaign using that color, and it was Kailee’s favorite color.

The seat belt ribbon has become extremely visible and recognized for what it represents. Ms. McCulloch has heard of stories where people run into each other at a store or other location, see the ribbon and talk about the Foundation and wearing a seat belt – even individuals who don’t know each other. The goal is to have this ribbon go nationally; to have people see the ribbon and automatically think, am I or my passengers wearing a seat belt.

Making a DifferenceWhen Ms. McCulloch was asked how it felt to do the work she was doing. She noted that the job has been the most difficult and the most rewarding job she has ever had. It is difficult because she has to share on a regular basis what happened to Kailee. The loss of her niece was one of the most painful things that has ever happened to her in her life. However, it is the most rewarding because she is seeing the difference being made and the lives saved. It happens on a frequent basis where someone says, ‘I didn’t wear my seat belt before, heard about Kailee’s story, and then I was in a crash and I am alive now because I was wearing my seat belt, because of you.’

This lets Ms. McCulloch understand that Kailee’s legacy is alive. Kailee’s life meant something and it still means something, and it always will. Kailee’s story is making a difference in her community, her state and the world.

For More InformationIf you want to be able to share the message or learn more about seat belt safety or the Foundation, there is the YouTube channel that has a wide variety of video options, as well as the Foundation website.

You can watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking HERE.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #49 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

An Interview with Judge Stephen Manley about the CACCJustice Speaks podcast continues its series about State Treatment Court Associations, interviewing Judge Steven Manley, President of the California Association of Collaborative Court Professionals (CACC). This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.

BackgroundJudge Stephen Manley

Judge Manley has been the President for the CACC for approximately 20 years. He describes that he is only the second person to head the Association since its inception. The judge shared that he has been a judge for 30 years, after the Governor’s appointment in 1993. He first considered the concept of Treatment Courts, or Collaborative Courts as they are called in California, after recognizing that he was sentencing individuals to prison and not seeing a productive end. Judge Manley noted that he saw courts primarily using punishment with those being sentenced and felt other options were needed. Drug Courts appeared to offer a solution.

Judge Manley has played a leadership role in influencing Collaborative Court policy in California, and described how he has worked to obtain state funding for the Treatment Courts. He stated that while there has been support from the state, obtaining funding remains a challenge for the Collaborative Court programs.

The AssociationWhen the California Association began, it was very small, only 40-50 members. Through the years, membership has slowly but steadily grown to a point where the 2023 conference saw its largest attendance ever. After its inception, the CACC participated in the National Association of Drug Court Professionals’ (NADCP) National Congress of Drug Court Associations, which was an early effort to establish standards in policies and practices in Drug Courts across the country. The Association soon began working on two primary goals:

1. To work on policy impacting Collaborative Courts in the state; and,
2. To provide training and education on treatment and best practices to California’s Collaborative Court practitioners.

Judge Manley described the challenges of running an association without paid staff, and praised what the CACC has been able to accomplish with its volunteers. He said the Association has used the conferences to highlight programs and display innovative ideas for everyone. Furthermore, California Collaborative Courts are invited to come as teams whenever possible. He talked about the difficulties many practitioners encounter in attending CACC conferences and was particularly pleased that this year’s conference saw two Presiding Judges and two elected District Attorneys participate in the opening plenary.

Trends in Collaborative Courts in the StateThe Judge described that recent changes in California law, where drug possession and use laws have been reduced to misdemeanors have made it difficult for many courts to maintain their populations. He said in response, courts have begun to do something he believed Collaborative Courts should have been doing for some time, working with more serious cases and individuals who have significant needs.

The interview closes with Judge Manley describing his role in launching Community Assistance, Recovery and Empowerment (CARE) Courts. He describes that CARE Courts are designed to serve those most resistant to intervention and treatment, those with serious mental illnesses. The courts are designed to work with, and empower families, so that those who cannot help themselves can get help. Our time ran out before the Judge could get into detail about the new CARE Court model, so we anticipate inviting him back to participate in a second interview. We look forward to hearing more about his vast experience in the Collaborative Courts at both the state and national level.

We wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this episode.

Additional ResourceYou can also watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #48 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Professor David Wexler talks about Therapeutic JurisprudenceIn this episode, Justice Speaks turns to the field of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, where JSI CFO Judge Brian MacKenzie sits down with Professor David Wexler from the University of Puerto Rico School of Law.

Professor Wexler’s Personal Journey Initially, Professor Wexler discusses his Brooklyn roots and relates his personal journey, describing how he became a lawyer working for the United States Justice Department before becoming a law professor at the University of Arizona School of Law.

Professor David B. Wexler

Initially, Professor Wexler discusses his Brooklyn roots and relates his personal journey, describing how he became a lawyer working for the United States Justice Department before becoming a law professor at the University of Arizona School of Law.

We briefly discuss his work at the Justice Department including how he helped to draft the original Maranda[1] warnings. Then we talk about how he became a faculty member for the University of Arizona School of Law.

Professor Wexler then explains the twenty-year-long process involved in his becoming the only non-Puerto Rican faculty member for the University of Puerto Rico School of Law

Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the LawProfessor Wexler discusses his role in creating the concept of Therapeutic Jurisprudence which he nicknamed TJ. We explore how TJ is regarded as a potential therapeutic or anti-therapeutic agent. It looks at the law in action, seeing the law as consisting of rules, legal procedures, and individuals’ roles in the justice system. But TJ is always constrained by, and subordinate to, the concept of Due Process.

We then discuss how he developed the concept of TJ, starting with an article written by two psychologists who were assisting doctors in getting patients to follow medical advice. After reading the article he thought this concept could work in the legal system.

We talk about how TJ was first applied in Problem Solving Courts and moved on to how it can be mainstreamed in the courts. Professor Wexler describes the many ways TJ can be standardized.

Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) interviews Professor David WexlerWe touch on the world-wide impact of TJ, including in such countries as Pakistan and Singapore. We go on to discuss how living in Puerto Rico caused him to learn Spanish, which resulted in an expansion of TJ into Spanish speaking countries.

Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Restorative Justice, and Procedural FairnessWe then discuss how TJ is different to Restorative Justice. Professor Wexler says originally Restorative Justice (RJ) was not considered part of the legal system, but slowly as it was mainstreamed, it became closer to TJ theories and the courts.

Professor Wexler then talks about Procedural Fairness and its relationship to TJ. He argues TJ incorporates Procedural Fairness while extending beyond it.

International Society for Therapeutic JurisprudenceProfessor Wexler has been named the honorary President of the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence. The Society coordinates all TJ activity globally. It puts on an international conference every other year and it is the overarching organization for all things TJ.

Judge Peggy Hora (Ret.), Judge Lisa Tremewan, and Professor David Wexler

Professor Wexler has been named the honorary President of the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence. The Society coordinates all TJ activity globally. It puts on an international conference every other year and it is the overarching organization for all things TJ.

Finally, we discuss his relationship with Judges Peggy Hora and William Schma. He believes these judges are responsible for taking the academic theory of TJ and bringing it to the criminal justice system.

For more information on TJ: You can email Professor Wexler’s at: davidbwexler@yahoo.com

[1] Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966),

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #47 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) and Judge Harvey Hoffman (Ret.)

IntroductionPrescription opiate and heroin abuse has reached epidemic proportions. Increasing numbers of individuals with prescription opiate and heroin use disorders are finding their way into the Criminal Justice System. Specialty Courts have proven themselves to be an effective response in addressing substance use disorders of offenders participating in their programs and reducing criminal recidivism. However, a major problem for individuals with opiate and heroin use disorders participating in these programs is a lack of safe and sober housing.

They have a lack of safe and sober housing

They sleep in their vehicles, on the streets, on the couches of a revolving network of friends and in households comprised of others with similar substance use dependencies. It is very difficult for Treatment Court programs to be successful when most of a participant’s time is spent adrift in a subculture where prescription pain killer and heroin use is encouraged and many, if not most of their associates are actively using these drugs.

The obvious answer is to remove these individuals from their ‘using’ environment. A significant percentage of these individuals have long since burned their bridges to their families and have no close connections to the law-abiding world. Placing individuals with prescription opiate and heroin use disorders in jails or prisons over long periods of time is very expensive and not effective. Jails are frequently overcrowded and the public is becoming increasingly disenchanted with the incarceration of nonviolent dependent offenders. Placement of these offenders in residential treatment facilities can be very beneficial, but such placement is also extremely expensive. Residential long-term care runs between $48.00 and $90.00 per day. Residential short-term care runs between $88.33 and $167.00 per day.

The sad reality is that after a few weeks or months, the people with substance use disorders must come out of the jails, prisons or residential treatment programs and all too frequently have no place to go other than the environments from where they came.

An Answer: Permanent Supportive HousingTo be successful, Permanent Supportive Housing must include three components: 1) below market rate capital financing; 2) rental subsidies; and 3) on-site social services.

Below Market Rate Financing: The Permanent Supportive Housing model is a means of developing safe, long-term housing for identified vulnerable populations, including but not limited to:

• homeless veterans,
• homeless mothers and their children,
• people with physical disabilities and others.

Capital funding for such projects comes from a number of federal programs.

Capital funding for such projects comes from a number of federal programs that are allocated by State Housing Development Authorities. The majority of funding comes from private sector investors who gain a strong rate of return for investing in affordable housing. There are other sources of capital that can be pursued from foundations and the Federal Home Loan Bank of Indianapolis. In addition to low-income tax credits, the upcoming settlements with Walgreens provides a potential opportunity to fund housing units.

Rental Subsidies: Most persons in the identified vulnerable population residing in the apartment communities developed under the Permanent Supportive Housing Model are indigent. A key aspect of the Permanent Supportive Housing Model is that tenants typically qualify for Section 8 housing assistance. The tenants qualifying for housing assistance pay that portion of the rent equaling 30% of their income. The availability of Section 8 housing assistance creates a unique opportunity for impoverished members of the identified vulnerable population to be able to afford a decent place to live.

A tenancy in an apartment community developed under the Permanent Supportive Housing Model, with Section 8 housing assistance, provides the member of the identified vulnerable population with safe housing, and access to necessary treatment and other services. Participants are powerfully motivated to complete their treatment programs as this is typically a condition for their remaining in their housing units.

On-Site Social Services: Critical to the Permanent Supportive Housing Model is the development of a Service Plan that is designed to meet the needs of the members of the identified vulnerable population. The Service Plan must include the identification of services required, the providers capable of providing those services and the means of funding. There is no additional cost for placing social services in the housing as all of the individuals are in Treatment Courts.

Michigan has Supportive Housing Projects up and runningMichigan’s Drug-Free Housing ProjectAndy’s Place

In Michigan, one 50 apartment unit, known as Andy’s Place located in the city of Jackson, and it is open and operating. At least four others such facilities are in the planning or construction phase, with more conversations happening across the state. Thus, permanent Supportive Housing Projects are spreading across Michigan servicing individuals who are referred from, and participating in, Michigan’s Specialty Courts.

The initial research results from the Jackson unit is promising. The research suggests that 24/7 security at the entrance to the units is important to program success. It is not needed to keep people in, rather it is needed to keep people out. When word gets out that there will be a building filled with people with opioid SUDs, the drug dealers take note. It is also important to keep the drug using friends of the residents out.

The research also suggests that Specialty Court oversight of the residents is important during the first months of a participant’s residency. Finally, the development of a non-drug using, supportive community amongst the residents is critical to their long-term recovery. They help each other during relapses or periods when a resident is otherwise struggling. They provide a supportive social program for things like Thanksgiving, Christmas and New Year’s Eve. They make sure that the residents know that they are not in this alone; that they are in a place that is safe and supportive.

ConclusionThese development communities encompass the development of 50 units each of one- and two-bedroom units and appropriate community spaces to serve the resident’s needs. The primary target populations is individuals with prescription opiate/heroin use disorders who are referred from and participating in Specialty Courts. This is permanent long-term housing. Participants in Specialty Courts may remain in these units for as long as they wish, even after completion of the program, providing the participants long-term housing relief, and supporting their efforts to remain safe and sober.

___________________________________________________________________

1. Report of Findings and Recommendations for Action. Michigan Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force, 2015, Page 6.
2. Id. at page 7.
3. Id.
4. Id. at page 8.
5. Id. at page 10
6. Id. at page 14
7. Michigan Supreme Court. Problem Solving Courts Saving Lives: 2015 Performance Measures and Outcomes, page 11.
8. Id. at page 21.

The post Drug-Free Housing for Drug Treatment Court Participants appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

An Interview with Judge Melanie May about the FADCPIn this episode, Justice Speaks continues a series about State Treatment Court Associations. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect. In this episode, we interview Judge Melanie G. May representing the Florida Association of Drug Court Professionals (FADCP).

In the BeginningJudge Melanie G. May

Judge May is the Acting Chair of the FADCP and a former Chair of the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). She was appointed to the bench in 1991 in Fort Lauderdale Florida. After four year on the bench, in 1995, she was asked to take on the Drug Court docket which is how she became involved in Treatment Courts. Her court was the second or third created in the country and she was the second judge to serve on that court. During that time she helped to create FADCP.

Judge May explains that after that she was appointed to the Florida Court of Appeals in 2001 and that her only regret from the appointment was giving up presiding over her Drug Court. Judge May, also discusses how large her Drug Court was, starting with 400 participants and ending up with the largest treatment court in the country at 1,800.

Leadership in FADCP Judge May then discusses how she and Judge Evans from Tampa started the Florida Association in the late 1990s. In 2008, the downturn in the economy hurt the Association and so the they held their conferences with the Florida Alcohol and Drug Abuse Association. In 2019, FADCP began doing conference on their own again.

Judge May mentions how they got a grant to put on a conference in 2019, however, after that came COVID, which of course created significant issues on holding a conference. During that time, Judge Jeri Beth Cohen, a NADCP Stanley Goldstein award winner, retired from the bench and as FADCP’s president. So Judge May once again became the Chair of the Association.

FADCP has started to do networking sessions and virtual presentations and has regrown the Association to several hundred members. With COVID now in the past, they have started planning for an in person conference in the spring of 2024. FADCP’s focus is to grow the membership and improve training.

Legislative Support for Treatment CourtsJudge May then talks about how the legislature gave twenty million dollars to fund Florida Drug Courts. As a result, Florida created post-adjudication Drug Treatment Courts. The Legislature then funded a study to determine the effectiveness of those courts. The study concluded that they were very successful. Given their success, the Legislature continues to fund these courts. One of FADCP’s goals is to have one of these courts in every jurisdiction in the state. FADCP is also working on expanding re-entry courts and training all judges in Florida on Problem Solving Court techniques.

We wish to thank Judge May for sharing her unique experiences with FADCP and how it is changing criminal justice in Florida. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can also watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #46 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Without Change, the Absence of Race Within Veteran Treatment Court Policies Will Continue to Destructively Impact African American VeteransPolicy changes surrounding race inequities should be the first stop for review by VTCs and their leadership teams.

Veteran Treatment Courts (VTCs), one of several treatment court models, all create policies that govern their programs. VTCs are not impervious to acts that discriminate against African American veterans who are either participants or eligible to participate in their programs, thus, the time has come for changes in practices and policies, and wording is key. Policy changes surrounding race inequities should be the first stop for review by VTCs and their leadership teams.

Policy WordingPolicy wording is used to provide direction when issues arise that cannot be readily remedied. Policies can also be changed, particularly when a specific need is outlined. Racial disparities and discriminatory practices have long been an open debate at all levels of government and in private practice, which has led to a multitude of legislative efforts. The Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) recently published, for instance, that it understands that racial and gender disparities readily exist and that solutions through the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP), and others, is being offered. Specifically, Gregory D. Torain, policy advisor for the BJA, declared that:

“…We know treatment courts haven’t been immune to the racial and gender disparities, but BJA, the National Association of Drug Court Professionals, and local treatment courts are taking steps to remedy the inequities. There are now several toolkits to help staff analyze their courts’ operations to help them better represent the communities they serve…” (The Bureau of Justice Assistance, 2022, para. 8)

This disclosure by the BJA policy advisor, despite its lack of any implied authority for enforcement, confirms that change is certainly needed, and it should start with wording in the very policies that govern courts like VTCs. Being specific with wording in policies designed to assist and protect our veterans must be a priority. Leaders at all levels of government, to include those within the judiciary, must be diligent in seeking out needed changes to level the playing field for those historically impacted. History has proven that words matter! Words can and have created opportunities and devastating circumstances concurrently, particularly when critical and impactful words, like race, are left out.

The 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment ActOne glaring historical example of how policy wording destructively affected African American veterans is the 1944 Servicemen’s Readjustment Act, commonly known as the GI Bill, which did not reference race. Post-World War II, President Roosevelt, in instituting the GI Bill, created an avenue that openly discriminated against African American veterans. African American veterans faced very different existences than their white veteran counterparts when they returned home from the war. The GI Bill, through congressional actions, opened doors with generous federal appropriations for housing and education, which established and solidified some of the most substantial wealth transfers to many veterans since the Reconstruction era(Equal Justice Initiative, 2017; Herbold, 1994-1995; Meschede, et al., 2022). An impressive 7.8 million service men and women were educated under the GI Bill, which earned them an average of 10 to 15 thousand dollars more annually than those who did not complete college or vocational training. However, this same congressional action also effectively closed doors and shut out 1.2 million African American veterans who had also heroically served their country, in segregated units. African American veterans certified by the Veterans Administration (VA) for GI Bill use, who then attempted to use their benefits, faced a society explicitly hostile towards their success. Through the absence of wording that banned discerning practices, e.g., racial discrimination, African Americans were often shunned, segregated, and relegated to lower economic forms of existence (Meschede, et al., 2022). African American veterans were forced to live in redlined districts created by the same federal government that afforded them the GI Bill (Schott Foundation, 2022). Words matter!

African Americans continue to be amongst the most discriminated against racial demographic.

Today, some 79 years later, we still see evidence of racial disparities within and post military service. African Americans continue to be amongst the most discriminated against racial demographic (Hannah-Jones, 2021), African American veteran unemployment rates are still higher, and wealth continues to be substantially lower than white veterans, but why? African Americans have served, with distinction, in every war America has ever fought (Starks, Rogers, & Dunbar, 2021) and, according to recent sources, they are still afforded VA benefits at lower rates than white veterans. Home values are still rated lower and often targeted as less desirable (Moss, 2020), frequently by white appraisers and even those appointed by VA commissioned evaluators. This devaluation directly impacts African American veterans home equity if they need to mount a legal defense (McIntosh, 2020; Starks, 2022); this particularly since African Americans are still disproportionately targeted and incarcerated at higher rates (Carrega, 2021). Words matter! Perceived disparities are also noted in received VA healthcare services.

Equity and Fairness Within the VA Healthcare SystemAs another offered example, the VA has been collecting and reviewing literature surrounding Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the VA Healthcare Systemfor at least 15-years (see Saha, Freeman, Toure, Tippens, & Weeks, 2007). The effort in their 2007 review outlined, and effectively legitimized, a series of studies that examined various aspects of racial disparities, which also could have influenced policies and behaviors involving African American veterans. Some reviewed and referenced studies seemingly ‘victim blamed’ and referenced the lack of ‘intellect/literacy‘ of African American veterans for disparities in healthcare services received. Understanding this, many continue to wonder why African American Veterans and their general community populations continue to distrust the VA and the American healthcare system. This too is not only seeming to be a purposeful strategy to continue the status quo, it also appears to be a means to oppose needed changes given the period information has been collected. Thus, according to some reports reviewed, the problem appears not to be the VA system, its clinicians, or healthcare workers, rather, African American veterans. Surely this information could effectively trigger some African American veterans into a perception of their taxpayer contributions being utilized to delegitimize and undermine their equal access to, and treatment within, the VA healthcare system, and with little evidence as to why. Likewise, resulting frustrations could potentially trigger hostile and criminogenic reactions when appropriate resolutions are not provided by the very system that should have answers. This also, of course, is the very same healthcare system that African American VTC participants are utilizing while navigating their programs.

As history past and present has shown us all, Black Words Matter, too!

The National Veterans Justice Commission (NVJC), in 2022 formed a think tank made of senior political and military leaders, policy makers, and researchers. This committee will examine elements, review research, and engage in ascertaining testimony regarding veteran incarceration, and then will look to work collaboratively in “developing recommendations for evidence-based policy changes that enhance safety, health, and justice.” This is critical work, as given Americas history, e.g., due to possible reactions to racialized treatment, unequal access to VTCs, or discrimination in received veteran benefits, etc., disabled service members of African American descent may be on the verge of being triggered daily into behaviors that legally reflects poorly on themselves while the VA system is systematically failing them simultaneously.

To conclude, policy changes surrounding race inequities should be the first stop for review by VTCs and their leadership teams. If we do not specifically state race and its influences within the policies we create and follow, it creates a distinct avenue to ignore the impact its absence will have on people of color, particularly African American veterans, as history past and present has shown us all that Black Words Matter, too!

ReferencesCarrega, C. (2021, October 13). Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of Whites, new report on state prisons finds. CNN. Retrieved January 3, 2023.

Equal Justice Initiative. (2017). Lynching in America: Targeting Black Veterans. 52. Retrieved January 1, 2023.

Hannah-Jones, N. (2021). The 1619 Project. New York: Random House LLC.

Herbold, H. (1994-1995). Never a Level Playing Field: Blacks and the GI Bill. 6 (Winter), 104-108. doi:10.2307/2962479

McIntosh, K. M. (2020, February 27). Examining the Black-white wealth gap. Up Front. The Brookings Institute. Retrieved February 1, 2022.

Meschede, T., Eden, M., Jain, S., Miles, B., Martinez, M., Stewart, S., . . . Madison, M. (2022). Institute for Economic and Racial Equity Research Brief: Interim Report from our GI Bill study. The Heller School For Social Policy and Management: Institute for Economic and Racial Equity. Retrieved January 4, 2023.

Moss, E. M. (2020, December 8). The Black-white wealth gap left Black households more vulnerable. Up Front. The Brookings Institute. Retrieved January 31, 2022.

Saha, S., Freeman, M., Toure, J., Tippens, K., & Weeks, C. (2007, June). Racial and Ethnic Disparities in the VA Healthcare System: A Systematic Review [Internet] Excutive Summary. Health Services Research & Development Service. Washington (DC): Department of Veterans Affairs (US).

Schott Foundation. (2022, January 26). The 1968 Kerner Commission Report Justice Delayed: The Unmet Promise of Equality. Schott Foundation 30th Anniversary Event. YouTube.

Starks, J. (2022, February 15). African American History: Are Collaborative Courts abolitionist within the Judiciary? Justice Speakers Institute. Retrieved from Justice Speakers Institute.

Starks, J., Rogers, T. T., & Dunbar, T. J. (2021). Civil Unrest: A Collaborative of Veteran Perspectives, Experiences, and Recommendations for Healing. Justice Speakers Institute. Retrieved from Justice Speakers Institute.

The post Black Words Matter, too! appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

An Interview with the MATCP LeadershipIn this episode, Justice Speaks continues with its series about State Treatment Court Associations. This episode is sponsored by Reconnect. In this episode, we interview Judge Jocelyn Fabry and Katharine Hude who represent the Michigan Association of Treatment Court Professionals (MATCP).

In the BeginningJudge Fabry

Judge Fabry is the Chief Judge of the Sault Ste Marie Chippewa Tribal Court. She presides over a tribal healing to wellness court and is the current President of MATCP. Judge Fabry initially became involve in treatment courts when she was a tribal assistant prosecutor. That led to her presiding over a tribal healing to wellness courts which incorporates tribal customs and traditional medicine practices.

Ms. Kate Hude

Ms. Katharine (Kate) Hude is the Executive Director of the Michigan Association. She is an attorney who became the Executive Director in 2016. Prior to this, as an attorney she was in general practice with a focus on criminal defense and family law. As Executive Director, she works on all aspects of MATCP operations including education, conference planning, and legislation. The association also has a Legislative Director, Judge Harvey Hoffman a retired Sobriety Court judge. (DWI/Drug Courts are known in Michigan as Sobriety Courts.) One of her biggest responsibilities is strengthening relationships with state agencies and other state associations.

The Growth of MATCPJudge Fabry, tell us about how the Board of Directors for MATCP is reflective of all the different professional perspectives that are involved in treatment courts. Then there is a discussion of how Judge Schma, an early Drug Treatment Court Judge, and Judge Hoffman founded the association and held the first conference in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Judge Fabry went to her first conference as a prosecutor in 2008.

Ms. Hude describes how membership in the association is part of the conference fee. As the conference has grown, so has the membership. The largest conference to date was in 2018 with 980 attendees. After that, Covid limited in-person conferences. However, in 2022, the conference attendance rebounded to 748 attendees. Most of the conferences are held in the middle of the state, either in Grand Rapids or the state capitol of Lansing. To extend the reach of its training, in 2017, the association started an annual Upper Peninsula (UP) training which in 2022, had 90 attendees.

The UP training idea came from Judge Fabry speaking with Judge Geno Salomone (a former MATCP President) about the need to train courts on the issue of medication assisted treatment (MAT). She noted that resistance to using MAT was stronger in the UP and the need to explain MAT was the focus of the first UP training conference. That first UP training was very successful and since then has continued as an annual endeavor.

MATCP’s Accomplishments and ChallengesMs. Hude talks about MATCP’s annual conference, which will be held February 28 to March 1, 2023. To support the conference MATCP has created a new website that is conference specific. It is based upon the NADCP conference model and can be found at matcpconference.org.

Judge Fabry discusses about how MATCP started by focusing on education and while it is still a major focus, the association is also working to have legislation that reflects the best practices for Treatments Courts. In that regard she mentions in the successful innovative ignition interlock statute that allows individuals in Sobriety and Veterans Treatment Courts to obtain a driver’s license if doing well in the program as one of the association’s accomplishments. Ms. Hude then discusses how they are looking to expanding the driver’s license program to mental health court participants.

Judge Fabry talks about the new medical marijuana law that gives new tools to judges in Michigan when dealing with medical marijuana.

Ms. Hude, talks about how MATCP helped the state supreme court develop a Best Practice publication that is Michigan specific. She also talks about how MATCP developed a collaborative relationship with the different medical organizations in the state.

Judge Fabry also talks about the Treatment Courts housing project. Working with private banks and local organizations, sober living long-term housing is being created so that courts can place participants in long-term drug free housing.

Judge Fabry discusses the new team training for individual courts and how they hope to expand it. Also, the Association is working to support Treatment Courts with staff turnover.

Finally, Ms. Hude talks about how there are now 208 treatment courts in Michigan and how the Association is looking to provide more regional trainings during the upcoming years.

We wish to thank Judge Fabry and Ms. Hude for sharing their unique experiences with MATCP and how it is changing criminal justice in Michigan. We also wish to thank Reconnect for sponsoring this podcast episode.

Additional ResourceYou can also watch this interview by going to the Justice Speakers Institutes’ YouTube Channel or by clicking here.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #45 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By: Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) and Judge Kevin Burke (Ret.)

The core of being an effective trial court judge is to be a judge who has insight and can effectively manage her or his own emotions as well as the emotions of the others in the courtroom. [1] If the judge presides in a family court or treatment court, there are skills you can learn that can enhance your effectiveness but even if you are a part-time limited jurisdiction court judge there are similar skills that are essential. Beyond insight into emotions in a courtroom a judge needs to be an effective communicator and an even better listener, and a judge needs to be a trauma-informed jurist.

Procedural Fairness—What is It?For decades social scientists have studied courts and developed the concept of procedural fairness. That research shows what makes some judges very effective and how to achieve litigant satisfaction through procedural fairness.

The four principles of procedural fairness are:[2]

1. Voice: The ability to participate in the case by expressing their viewpoint.
2. Neutrality: Being an unbiased decision maker who is transparent about how decisions are made.
3. Respectful Treatment: People who come to court need to be treated with dignity and their rights obviously protected.
4. Trust: Trust is achieved by judges who carefully listen, who project that they are caring and who explain their decisions.

Did the judge listen to me?

‘Trust that my decision is a correct application of the law because I am a judge,’ will no longer carry the day. A cynical view of litigant satisfaction is that 50% of the time, a judge rules against one party or the other so the maximum level of litigant satisfaction is 50%. But procedural fairness research shows that litigants are far more sophisticated than that cynical viewpoint.[3] Litigants want to win but they are willing to accept and abide by decisions in far greater numbers when they lose if they are afforded procedural fairness. Important factors in a litigant’s satisfaction are reflected in the following questions:

• Did the judge listen to me?
• Was I treated with respect?
• Do I understand why the decision was made by the judge?

Past Trauma in the Courts75% of adults involved in the criminal justice system report at least one traumatic event during childhood.

To achieve procedural fairness the effect of past trauma cannot be ignored by judges. Research shows up to 90% of adolescents and 75% of adults involved in the criminal justice system report at least one traumatic event during childhood.[4] Multiple exposure to community violence, family or domestic violence, or sexual assault creates a higher risk for childhood trauma, resulting in mental health issues, behavioral problems, or substance abuse.[5] Judges who are trauma-informed know that a significant number of the people who appear before them are suffering from some form of trauma due to Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs).[6] At the same time many of these same jurists, are uncertain about how to develop a constant trauma-informed response.

For those struggling with this uncertainty, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration (SAMHSA) provides important guidance with the publication of the six foundational principles that should guide a trauma-informed approach: [7]

1. Safety: Everyone in the courthouse should feel physically and psychologically safe.
2. Trustworthiness and Transparency: Decisions should be transparent with the goal of building trust between participants and the judge and court personal.
3. Peer Support: The court encourages peer support.
4. Collaboration and Mutuality: There is a culture of building relationships and problem- solving both among judges, and court professionals in their interactions with participants.
5. Empowerment, Voice, and Choice: The court provides opportunities for participants to advocate for themselves and ensures that they have an opportunity to provide input into decision making.
6. Cultural, Historical, and Gender Issues: The court recognizes and addresses historical trauma and provides access to culturally responsive services.

These principles when applied to a judge and staff in a courtroom share a remarkable degree of overlap with the four principles of procedural fairness. They incorporate the same core principles: voice, respectful treatment, transparency and trustworthy authorities.

Trauma-Informed Practices SAMHSA researchers in a recently published draft article entitled Essential Components of trauma-informed Judicial practice reachedthe same conclusion.[8] They start with the assertion that all trauma-informed practice begins with respectful treatment.[9]

The authors then highlight the power of voice in the courtroom, quoting a litigant:

“I had to try to articulate something that I was not even able to speak about very well in the first place. And I needed to do it quickly and succinctly. What the judge did was pretty incredible….I was able to do what I needed to do, and he was able to hear what he needed to hear. I had been in the mental health system for 14 years, and this judge changed my life in that one simple act”.[10] (emphasis added)

They suggest a series of transparent actions that lead to the perception that the judge is both fair and neutral, creating trust.[11]

Trauma-Informed and Procedural Fairness togetherTrauma awareness coupled with adherence to procedural fairness principles is an opportunity to make what even may be small adjustments that will improve judicial outcomes. Years ago, the National Center for State Courts did a survey asking people to describe courtrooms. 39% described them as intimidating.[12] For individuals suffering from deep seated ACEs this intimidation will be far greater.

Intimidation can be counterproductive

Formality and a dignified setting surely are important to courts, but intimidation can be counterproductive. People who feel intimidated are less likely to speak (to give voice, which is the most important of the four procedural fairness principles). People who have in the past suffered trauma are highly susceptible to being intimidated. And people who are intimidated are more likely to give the judge false positives. “Sir, do you understand my order?” to which intimidated litigants reply ‘Yes, your Honor’ even though they have no clue what went on, but they do know if they say yes, they are likely to get out of the courtroom faster. Reducing intimidation and helping the speaker begins with “the simple act of giving…court participants a clear explanation of what is going to happen.”[13]

For a judge to be an effective listener, the judge needs of course to have an open mind and guard against creating the impression that the matter has already been decided before the matter has been argued. But beyond that, good listeners have the skill to help a speaker without creating the impression that the judge favors one side or the other. Giving positive feedback to the speaker or saying: “As I understand what you are saying….” helps give voice, confirms the accuracy of the judges understanding of what she or he heard but does not diminish the judge’s neutrality. This combined with good listening skills builds trust.

Change the WorldNelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela once said, “Education is the most powerful weapon which you can use to change the world.” Few if any judges have the capacity to change the world but all judges have the capacity to make a difference in the lives of those who appear before them. Making a difference for all of those who appear in a courtroom suffering from long-term trauma is within the reach of all judges. If you preside in a therapeutic court, there are lots of opportunities to ameliorate the trauma that so many of those in therapeutic courts have suffered. But even if you are a part-time limited jurisdiction judge, you have the opportunity to display what a good and decent trauma-informed justice system looks like. And collectively those positive courtroom experiences may well change the world.

[1] “Emotional Regulation and Judicial Behavior,” 99 California Law Review 1485 (2011)

[2] Burke, Kevin and Steve Leban, “Procedural Fairness: A Key Ingredient in Public Satisfaction,” Court Review, American Judges Association (2007)

[3] Id.

[4] Trauma Among Youth in the Juvenile Justice System

[5] Id.

[6] Brief Adverse Childhood Experiences

[7] Trauma Specific Interventions for Justice Involved Individuals SAMHSA

[8] DRAFT Essential Components of Trauma Informed Judicial Practice

[9] Id.

[10] Id.

[11] Id.

[12] Burke et, al.

[13] DRAFT Essential Components of Trauma Informed Judicial Practice.

The post A Trauma-Informed Court Starts with Procedural Fairness appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Every third Sunday in November is World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims (WDoR). In this episode of Justice Speaks, JSI Co-President David Wallace speaks with Banita Fidyova, the Secretary General for the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims Foundation.

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #44  appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In October 2005, the United Nations recognized the third Sunday of November as “the appropriate acknowledgment for victims of road traffic crashes and their families” and declared it as World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims. #WDoR2022

The post A Day of Remembrance appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This article highlights some anomalies and possible challenges Veteran Treatment Courts should understand and address, when it comes to Mentor Coordinator and volunteer mentor recruitment.

The post Are Veterans Serving as Mentor Coordinators and Volunteer Mentors in Veteran Treatment Courts Equal? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

An Interview with Leadership from the TASC In this episode, Justice Speaks continues its series about State Treatment Court Associations and interviews Mary Covington who represents the Texas Association of

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #43 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In this episode of Justice Speaks podcast, we turn to the topic of the Rule of Law, interviewing Elizabeth (Betsy) Anderson, Executive Director of the World Justice Project (WJP).

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #42 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In this episode of Justice Speaks, Mack Jenkins, Co-President of the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI), interviews Dr. Marie Crossen, the Executive Director of the Tennessee Association of Recovery Court Professionals (TARCP).

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #41 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

From September 12 through December 14, 2022, is the Stop. Trains Can’t. safety campaign. Remember, never race a train-the rush isn't worth the risk. #StopTrainsCant

The post See Tracks? Think Train! appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In this episode, Justice Speaks starts a new series about State Treatment Court Associations.  This episode is sponsored by Reconnect.  In this episode, we interview Kimberly Kitzberger and Liesl Nelson who represent the Wisconsin Association of Treatment Court Professionals (WATCP).

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #40 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Frye v. United States[1]  set the orgininal federal standard for the admission of scientific evidence in the courtroom. That standard lasted for several decades before the Supreme Court In Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) held the Frye standard was superseded by Federal Rule of Evidence 702 (FRE 702).[2]  As part of it’s opinion, the court expanded

The post FRE 702 – Under Review.  Why Is It Happening, and What Does It mean? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Justice Speaks turns to the field of International Human Rights, interviewing Morton Kjaerum, Director of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. 

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #39 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Chief Mack Jenkins joins the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) as Vice President, serving alongside the Institute’s two remaining founders – Judge Brian Mackenzie (Ret.) and David Wallace, (the Traffic Safety Guy). Jenkins retains the honorific “Chief” in recognition of his 9 years as chief probation officer of San Diego (California) County from 2007 to 2016. 

The post Mack Jenkins Joins JSI as Vice President appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In this episode, we interview Chief Mack Jenkins, the former head of the San Diego probation department. We also break the news that he has joined the Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) and accepted the position of Vice President. 

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #38 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

This episode of Justice Speaks focuses on the issue of Traffic Safety, more specifically the impact that larger trucks can have on our roads and highways.  

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #37 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

April is Distracted Driving Awareness Month and it is the perfect time to increase the discussion and educate everyone on the dangers of distracted driving.

The post Preventing Distracted Driving—You Can Make a Difference appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Judicial Education: Working to Become Better Judges An Interview with Joy Lyngar, Provost of the National Judicial College In this episode, Justice Speaks begins a new direction.  We will be interviewing leaders in the justice field about what they think about the current state of justice and what can be done to improve it.  We

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #36 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

An interview with Joy Lyngar, Provost for the National Judicial College (NJC) and incoming President of the National Association of State Judicial Educators (NASJE).

The post Justice Speaks Episode 36 – NJC-NASJE appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A judge who adopts the four key principles of procedural fairness is far more effective than a judge who relies on fear as a motivator.

The post The Need to be Trauma-informed in Sentencing appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Abolitionists in America played a significant role in abolishing chattel slavery. They disagreed with the inhumane treatment and methodology of the slave trade model, which represented the status quo of the wealth generation. Abolitionists first understood needs and then developed strategies that assisted escaping slaves in multiple ways. From providing shelter and food, to fighting to change

The post African American History: Are Collaborative Courts abolitionist within the Judiciary? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Written by Judge Brian MacKenzie (Ret.) and Judge Kevin Burke (Ret.) There are cases where everyone in the courtroom knows that a litigant or witness has suffered a traumatic injury. But what if the judge does not know about the person’s traumatic injury? Self- represented litigants will often not tell a judge their history and

The post Effective Judging: Trauma in the Courtroom appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

February 1st, 2022, is the 232nd anniversary of the United States Supreme Court’s first session, in 1790.  The day when the highest court in the United States with the ultimate jurisdiction over all U.S. laws commenced.

The post A Nation of Laws and Not of Men appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The University of Baltimore School of Law Sayra and Neil Meyerhoff Center for Families, Children and the Courts (CFCC) announces the availability for purchase of its Benchbook for Family Courts on Substance Use Disorders, Second Edition (Benchbook). 

The post Benchbook for Family Courts on Substance Use Disorders  appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Part Two of Veterans Treatment Courts A Veterans Treatment Court (VTC) employs the research-supported concepts and practices of the Drug Treatment Court model, in particular a version of the Ten Key Components, to serve a justice-involved population that has previously served in the United States military. The Role of  VTC Mentors One important feature that

The post Mentors in a Veterans Treatment Court appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Part One of Two It’s May, a time to enjoy spring with the flowers blooming, the grass growing and evidence of new life everywhere.  But it is also a time to recognize the individuals who have changed their lives overcoming their substance dependency because of Drug Treatment Courts.  May is National Drug Court Awareness Month.

The post Veterans Treatment Courts—Why They Matter appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The generally held belief that alcohol consumption is a matter of personal choice, can make it difficult to identify an individual suffering from an alcohol use disorder (AUD).  While alcohol is the single most abused drug in the United States, with 14.1 million Americans suffering from AUD and another 25.8 million abusing alcohol, not enough

The post The Perils Of Alcohol Abuse In The Workplace: 5 Tips to Protect the Company and Assist the Employee appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By:  Hon. Diane Bull, Ret. Do you remember the first person you really helped? Maybe it was a long journey, but somehow you got him or her over the finish line.  What were the things that helped that person succeed?  When it comes to impaired drivers in the court system, the answer to that question

The post Alcohol Testing: Applying Drug Court Best Practices to Standard Supervision appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Across the globe, countries everywhere have Ministries of Justice or Departments of Justice; Government departments named for an idea—Justice.  New Zealand has the Ministry of Justice; as does Japan and Greenland, with the leaders of these departments typically called the Minister of Justice.  Their roles depend on the country’s legal requirements, however, with that title,

The post Are You a Minister of Justice? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Judge Peggy Fulton Hora, a giant in the justice system, passed away on Saturday, October 31, 2020.  Justice Speakers Institute’s President and one of its founders, Judge Hora has been described as a pioneer in the justice system, a global leader in the drug treatment court field, and a champion for therapeutic jurisprudence. In 1985,

The post The Passing of a Giant appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Forensic impression evidence has become the subject of increased levels of scientific scrutiny. In particular, bite-mark evidence has been seriously questioned due to its weak underpinnings and the exaggerated testimony about it by some witnesses. This raises a question: how did bite-mark evidence become admissible in the first place? Witchcraft and Bite Marks With one

The post Does Frye prevent trial courts from reviewing bad science? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A  mere month ago I asserted there would never be a jury trial by teleconference in a blog post for Justice Speakers Institute, LLC.  Not only was I proved wrong last month in Texas but, as it turns out, the first trial conducted by video was in Ohio in 1971.[i]  The History of Video Trials In

The post “Telejurisprudence” in the Age of Covid-19, Part II appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The Supreme Court’s decision in Daubert vs. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals (Daubert) was an attempt to stem the growth of unreliable scientific evidence that flowed the evidentiary standard fashioned in Frye vs. United State.  The Court held that the Frye standard of “general acceptance by the scientific community” could be considered in evaluating expert testimony. However, that

The post The Daubert Double Standard appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

On April 22, Slate reporter Leah Litman ended her story about the starkly contrasting SCOTUS majority and minority opinions in Ramos v. Louisiana  with a judgement: “There is no easy way to confront race and racism in the law.” Some Justices acknowledged the history of racism underlying the enacting of the law in question; others

The post Building Trust from the Bottom Up appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

There is no dearth of information about the impact of the COVID-19 virus and subsequent quarantine and their effects on the courts. In a recent survey from the National Judicial College, “Nearly 6 in 10 of the 867 judges who responded said their courts were down to 25 percent or less of normal. Nearly 80

The post “Telejurisprudence” in the Age of Covid-19 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Chief District Court Judge Tom Jarrell (Guilford County, NC) died suddenly last August in his bedroom.  His colleagues were stunned at his sudden passing at age 56.  They went from stunned to shocked when his autopsy results were revealed last week showing his cause of death as an accidental overdose of fentanyl and heroin.  One

The post The Equal Opportunity Disease appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

20/20 vision is considered by some to be perfect eyesight, but what it really means is that a person does not need any aids, such as glasses, to see even better.  There are some individuals who can see better than 20/20, but 20/20 is the goal by everyone else.  Other than seeing ahead clearly, why

The post Is Your Safety Vision 20/20? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In 2016, the United States Surgeon General issued the report: Facing Addiction in America: The Surgeon General’s Report on Alcohol, Drugs, and Health.  In the report, he defined “addiction” as: The most severe form of substance use disorder, associated with compulsive or uncontrolled use of one or more substances. Addiction is a chronic brain disease

The post Substance Use Disorders—A Disease of the Brain appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Every family has one — Grandpa who is an “alkie,” the “junkie” cousin, the little brother who has become a “pothead,” and Mom who takes too many Vicodin.  But what we call these people not only affects how we think about them but also affects what services they receive. Positive Changes in Language Six years ago,

The post A Rose by Any Other Name appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

At the 92nd PAAM Annual Conference, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney and JSI Vice President David J. Wallace was presented with the MATCP Jeff Sauter Treatment Court Award.

The post JSI Vice President David Wallace Awarded the MATCP Sauter Award appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Sustainability is much more than having money to operate your Treatment Court. Sustainability requires a plan on the necessary steps to operate the Treatment Court: it requires that the community is educated about the program’s success; and it requires that non-monetary sources are located that can support the Court’s efforts. Sufficient funds are just one part of an overall plan for sustainability.

The post Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part 4) appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Guest Contributor: Michael Dreznes How can we justify our lack of global effort to defeat what has been called “the second worst epidemic in mankind’s history?” An Alarming Epidemic In the Plague of Justinian in 541 and 542 AD, approximately 100,000,000 people died, making this event recognized as the worst epidemic in history.  The second

The post We are on the verge of the worst epidemic in mankind’s history. Can we stop it? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Drug Treatment Courts (DTC) and those that have a similar outlook have been called “problem-solving, accountability, behavioral justice, therapeutic, problem oriented, collaborative justice, outcome oriented and constructive intervention courts.”1 All rely on therapeutic jurisprudence and non-adversarial justice and all designations refer to a different way of doing business where the focus is on treatment and

The post A Court By Any Other Name appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

New Zealand’s Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts – Justice Speaks Podcast Judges Lisa Tremewan and Ema Aitken are the founders of the New Zealand Alcohol and Other Drug Treatment Courts (AODTC).  The late Chief Judge, Russell Johnson, sent a delegation of judges to the National Association of Drug Court Professionals’ annual training conference in

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #35 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Dr. Robert DuPont Talks Chemical Slavery – Justice Speaks Podcast 50 years ago, Robert DuPont, M.D. started working in a state prison as a psychiatrist to see if he could make a difference in those prisoners’ lives.  As he discusses in this episode of Justice Speaks, he recognized fairly early on that the rise in

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #34 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

A Time of Celebration and Hope www.recoverymonth.gov In Memorium: Christopher Kennedy Lawford, 33 years sober. While recovery should be celebrated every day, September is the 29thAnnual National Recovery Month to remind us of the importance of this issue in our communities.  We ask local policy makers to sign proclamations to demonstrate a commitment to improving

The post September is Recovery Month appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Why do judges and other justice professionals need to be cognizant of trauma as it relates to court cases?  Like it or not, trauma seems to be the overwhelming negative factor affecting many people who come to court.  From treatment court participants to those who have experienced child abuse and neglect, “adverse childhood events” (ACE)

The post The Trauma-Informed Courtroom appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

As you develop your sustainability plan, it can be easy to overlook those resources that may not have a financial cost for your court. Once you have your concepts, develop the steps and then ASK! It’s amazing what Treatment Courts can achieve when they set their collective mind to it.

The post Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part Three) appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Part Two – Marketing Your Treatment Court Typically, the court system does not promote or advertise its work.  Sadly, it is not like the court system has a shortage of “clients.” There is no need to advertise. Even worse, many of its “clients” are repeat customers.  The same is true for Treatment Courts; there is no shortage

The post Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part Two) appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By: Helen Harberts, Guest Author  Persons suffering from substance use disorders do not just suffer during government hours!  Indeed, they often suffer more when they are not receiving treatment and attention from the team.   Recovery is difficult and it takes a long time.  Supervision works in the community, not just in the Court or the

The post Community Supervision: An Essential Part of Treatment Courts appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Part One – A Sustainability Plan When I was the Senior Director at NADCP’s National Center for DWI Courts, I trained new teams on how to implement DWI Courts, and one of the most common questions I received was: How do we “fund” the court?  Treatment Courts[1]are one of the most effective criminal justice programs

The post Treatment Court: Is Yours Sustainable? (Part One) appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By: Helen Harberts, Guest Author Most treatment courts are well aware of the importance of responding to participant behavior in a swift and certain manner. Reliable detection of good behavior and undesired behavior, with rapid responses, is the most effective form of behavior modification in the treatment court population. Most treatment courts know that severity

The post Incentives In Your Treatment Courts: Are You Focused On The Right Thing? appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Within a workplace setting what does an employer do when there is a legitimate reason to believe that the employee has been abusing alcohol or taking other drugs.  The law regarding employee privacy is evolving and many testing programs should be considered open to a legal challenge.  What is the right balance of the privacy

The post To Test or Not to Test – Reasonable Suspicion in the Workplace appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

But how do we deal with the man made hurricane of racial bigotry? Our nation has seen the horror that Hurricanes Harvey and Irma caused. What happened was not simply the loss of life, but the ravaging and destruction of communities that at best will take years to rebuild. There is no silver lining in

The post Natural Hurricanes Bring Humane Responses appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

In Gideon vs. Wainwright the Supreme Court announced that the right to an attorney was both “fundamental and essential” to rule of law under the Sixth Amendment to our Constitution, which provides that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right … to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.” Yet 55

The post Gideon Is Not a Promise but a Constitutional Mandate appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Students Against Destructive Decisions – Justice Speaks Podcast In the episode of Justice Speaks, JSI Co-Founder David Wallace, AKA the Traffic Safety Guy, speaks with Rick Birt, CEO and President of SADD (Students Against Destructive Decisions). SADD’s Focus SADD has been in existence for over 30 years and initially it focused on drunk driving, as

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #33 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By Guest Author: Judge Mark Atkinson, Chief Executive Officer, Texas Center for the Judiciary This past December, I traveled to Kabul, Afghanistan on a fifteen-day trip. I had been invited to assist with an international rule of law development project. Specifically, I was to prepare a strategic training plan for that nation’s court system personnel,

The post Supporting the Rule of Law appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

(Editor’s Note: April is Alcohol Awareness Month.  This is an important issue that involves alcohol) What does murder in America look like?  It happens at night.   The victim is the wife.  Her husband is the one who killed her, and he is older than 30 with a criminal record. He acts alone.  In half of cases,

The post Alcohol and Intimate Partner Violence appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

“I can’t wait to see you this weekend!”  Angelina Holloway sent that text message at 2:11 p.m. on April 18, 2016.  At 2:15 p.m., a deputy found her wrecked car. She had veered off of the road and crashed into a tree, dying on impact. It doesn’t take much effort to go on-line and find stories about

The post Distracted Driving: It Can Wait appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

By Guest Author: Professor John Kwasnoski Motor vehicle crash cases have become more and more technical with the evolution of so many forms of digital evidence and the prolific use of expert testimony in both civil and criminal cases. Computer animation and simulation are commonly offered into evidence, along with the digital data from cell

The post “Junk Science” in Motor Vehicle Crash Cases appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The facts are staggering; the tragedy enormous; the solution difficult.   Did you know that alcohol is the most commonly misused substance consumed in the United States?  Did you know that (AUD)? [1]   A substance use disorder (SUD) is defined as “a chronic, relapsing brain disease that is characterized by compulsive … seeking and use, despite harmful

The post Alcohol Awareness Month appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

On a bright morning just outside of Ann Arbor, Michigan, a semi truck hauling two trailers crashed into a motorcycle that was stopped for a red light.  The bike and its rider were driven into the back of a pickup truck before being pinned beneath the semi’s cab. Nearby emergency crews were able to lift

The post 5 Tips to Reduce Company Liability appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

DUI offenders and CARS – Justice Speaks Podcast In this episode, JSI Co-Founder David Wallace speaks with Erin Holmes of the Foundation for Advancing Alcohol Responsibility (FAAR).  Ms. Holmes is the Director of Traffic Safety Programs at FAAR. In our conversation, we discuss the Computerized Assessment and Referral System (CARS). CARS is a screening and

The post Justice Speaks Podcast Episode #32 appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

“According the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA)’s National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), in 2016, over 11 million Americans misused prescription opioids, nearly 1 million used heroin, and 2.1 million had an opioid use disorder due to prescription opioids or heroin….Since 2000, more than 300,000 Americans have died of an opioid overdose.” Between July 2016 and September 2017 emergency room visits for opioid overdoses increased 30% according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In the Midwest, it jumped 70%.

Over 11 million Americans misused prescription opioids.

What is an Opioid? Opioids are a class of drugs that are depressants. We have natural opioid receptors in our brains, so misuse can start easily and become hard to stop. Medically, opioids are used for moderate to severe pain, often in the form of morphine. Heroin, like morphine, is extracted from the opium poppy and can be injected, snorted or smoked. Hydrocodone, such as Vicodin, is often prescribed for mild to moderate pain and is less potent than morphine. Oxycodone, such as Oxycontin or Percocet, is also prescribed for moderate pain. Fentanyl is a synthetic that comes in a transdermal patch and is prescribed for severe pain. Fentanyl is up to 100 times more potent than morphine and can be 30 to 50 times more powerful than heroin. Prince lost his life to a Fentanyl overdose as have thousands of others.

Some people with an opioid use disorder started with prescription medicine and moved on to heroin. Others started directly with illicit drugs and misused the synthetic fentanyl. Very pure heroin, more often found in the street these days, can be inhaled thus breaking down the needle prohibition.

The Costs of Opioids The opioid epidemic is costing billions of dollars and taking thousands of lives. In Ohio, for example, a study by the Ohio State University found costs to the state of between $6.6 and $8.8 billion in 2016. That year also saw 4,050 overdose deaths, up 33% from 2015. There were 64,000 overdose deaths in 2016 in the United States. States hardest hit by the epidemic are West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.

West Virginia had the perfect storm for prescription abuse. Industrial injuries in coal mining and manufacturing established the base for prescription opioids to combat chronic pain. The drug companies poured 780 million doses of oxycodone and hydrocodone into that state between 2007 and 2012. The state has a population of 1.8 million people.

On the worse day in Huntington, WV’s history, 26 people overdosed in one day.

The opioid epidemic is taking thousands of lives.

What About the Children? According to “American Addicted,” a special series on PBS News Hour, in West Virginia, one out of five babies are born drug exposed. Although there are proven medical protocols to address this condition (Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome [NAS]), it is heartbreaking to see a newborn withdraw from heroin. Children of all ages are pouring into the foster care system and the number of children in care has risen precipitously. According to the Wall Street Journal, the rate of children in care has risen 40% in Vermont, 24% in Virginia and 19% in Ohio between 2013 and 2016. Numerous children are being orphaned because of parental overdoses and they are being adopted by grandparents, other relatives or foster parents. However, some languish in foster care, especially if they are older. The outlook for those children is grim.

What’s Being Done? Some states are enacting legislation to limit the amount of medication a doctor may subscribe. Earlier this year, Arizona passed the “Arizona Opioid Epidemic Act” which limits a prescription to 5 days’ worth of medication. It also provided funding for increased treatment. Doctors are seeking re-education on pain management so that reliance on opioids is reduced.

Another intervention is safe disposal programs for prescription medicine. That prevents having medication that is no longer needed in the house where it may be easily accessible to children and young adults. There is also “Rx Destroyer,” a charcoal activation system that neutralizes drugs.

In 33 states, like Florida, people with substance use disorders are being involuntarily committed to treatment under the Marchman Act. “Police use the Marchman Act to pick up people without a court order and take them to a designated stabilization and assessment center. Addiction professionals use the law when a patient fails to show up for treatment. Parents and friends use it when they fear a loved one’s life is at risk.”

Drug Treatment Courts have been at the forefront of “treatment-over-incarceration” programs.

Criminal justice responses include both pre-charge and diversion programs where, if completed, the defendant has the criminal charges dismissed. The accused is required to participate in treatment, do volunteer work, drug test, and fulfill other conditions to remain free of the charge. Unfortunately, Vermont’s pre-charge program has not been terribly successful due to a variety of reasons.

Drug Treatment Courts have been at the forefront of “treatment-over-incarceration” programs and have proven to be effective in multiple meta analyses. In May of last year, Erie County, NY created the Opiate Crisis Intervention Court, a drug treatment court that provides for immediate 30-day inpatient detox and treatment followed by 30 days of outpatient treatment. Participants are required to come to court every day at 11:00 for a check-in with the judge and they have an 8:00 curfew. They also do group counseling and get drug tested. Although it’s too early for an evaluation, only four out of 140 participants so far have “washed out” in the first five months of the program.

The Federal Response In April of 2017, the Department of Health and Human Services created its five point Opioid Strategy:

• Improve access to prevention, treatment, and recovery support services to prevent the health, social, and economic consequences associated with opioid addiction and to enable individuals to achieve long-term recovery;
• Target the availability and distribution of overdose-reversing drugs to ensure the broad provision of these drugs to people likely to experience or respond to an overdose, with a particular focus on targeting high-risk populations;
• Strengthen public health data reporting and collection to improve the timeliness and specificity of data and to inform a real-time public health response as the epidemic evolves;
• Support cutting-edge research that advances our understanding of pain and addiction, leads to the development of new treatments, and identifies effective public health interventions to reduce opioid-related health harms; and
• Advance the practice of pain management to enable access to high-quality, evidence-based pain care that reduces the burden of pain for individuals, families, and society while also reducing the inappropriate use of opioids and opioid-related harms.

In October of 2017, President Donald J. Trump declared a Nationwide Public Health Emergency but allocated no added money for treatment.

The opiate epidemic had multiple causes and there is no simple answer. It is clear, however, that we are going to have to beef up treatment that includes medically assisted treatment (MAT) and other evidence-based interventions.

By the Numbers

The post The Opioid Epidemic appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Brandon Griesemer, a part-time grocery clerk living with his parents in Novi, called the main telephone line at CNN 22 times Jan. 9 and 10.

Brandon Griesemer

Along with racist insults, he left threats: “Fake news. I’m coming to gun you all down. . . . I have more guns than you… . . . Your cast is about to get gunned down in a matter of hours. . . . I have a gun and I am coming to Georgia right now to go to the CNN headquarters to . . .gun every single last one of you.”

He was arrested and charged with transmitting interstate communications with the intent to extort and threat to injure, for threatening to kill CNN employees over “fake news,” crimes carrying up to five years in prison.

Griesemer’s words are just the latest in a series of examples of an important, emerging trend in American political discourse, a trend that is beginning to threaten the very fabric of our democracy.

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt in a well-researched and detailed new book, “How Democracies Die,” point out that failures of democratic societies occur mostly from elected officials’ actions.

They point to Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, who actively subverted existing democratic institutions in order to create an authoritarian regime, to illustrate how modern democracies fail. Chavez didn’t act alone; a large number of Venezuelans’ activity supported his dictatorial efforts. They enabled him to subvert the country’s existing democratic structures.

Unwritten rules sustain a democracy, Levitsky and Ziblatt note. The most basic is the concept of legitimate opposition.

Election results, in the absence of evidence of real subversion, must be accepted as legitimate. Political parties may disagree intensely, but they have to accept that their opponents are loyal Americans. Both sides must also accept that their opponents will win elections and then govern. Without such tolerance, democracy is threatened.

This idea of legitimate opposition was entrenched in the United States in our foundation. It was threatened for a time leading up to, and including the Civil War, then revived and strengthened in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries.

Challenging Obama’s Status Levitsky and Ziblatt are concerned that this unwritten rule of legitimacy is once again being undermined. They cite, for example, the attempted delegitimization of former President Barrack Obama by the so-called birther movement, which denied his status as an American.

Throughout history would-be authoritarian leaders have led their supporters to believe opponents are disloyal traitors who pose a threat to a nation’s way of life. Because there is no single moment – no coup, no declaration of martial law, or suspension of the constitution – in which a society obviously “crosses the line” into dictatorship, it is often difficult to know when a leader is working to undermine the republic. Those who denounce a certain political leader may be dismissed as exaggerating or crying wolf. Democracy’s erosion is, for many, almost imperceptible.

The rising tide of political delegitimization can, if left unchallenged, make the United States the next Venezuela.

The words used by Brandon Griesemer fit into a larger effort that Levitsky and Ziblatt argue is beginning to undermine our body politic. He did not come up with these ideas on his own. He was taught that those he disagreed with were making up facts. He learned they were enemies of the United States who spread “fake news” lies and should be treated like traitors.

The United States is still basically a healthy democracy, however, this rising tide of political delegitimization can, if left unchallenged, make the United States the next Venezuela. Norms of toleration and restraint which have served as the soft guardrails of American democracy, have helped this country avoid the kind of partisan fights that lead to the end of democracies elsewhere in the world.

They need to be protected and strengthened. The authors of How Democracies Die wrote: “We must learn from other countries to see the warning signs – and recognize the false alarms. We must be aware of the fateful missteps that have wrecked other democracies. And we must see how citizens have risen to meet the great democratic crises of the past, overcoming their own deep-seated divisions to avert breakdown..” And we must also learn from the words of Brandon Griesemer what not to think and say. Each American has a duty to protect the oldest democracy.

This blog posting was first published in Deadline Detroit. Reprinted with permission.

The post Man’s Threats A Threat Against Democracy appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Recently I had the opportunity to re-visit the Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial in Washington DC. The inscriptions on the wall reminded me of the power of this inspirational man and what I believe in, and strive for in my life: Justice For All.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. National Memorial

Justice for all. It is an easy phrase to espouse, but it can be a challenging one to live. As an assistant prosecutor for over 25 years I have worked to make my community a safer place to live; to hold those who violate the law accountable and support victims in their time of need. Ethically, it is my obligation to seek justice; personally it is my passion to be its advocate. I work to ensure that everyone’s rights are protected in the criminal justice system. Yet, it is not enough. Justice for all is much more than what occurs in the criminal justice system, and at times the criminal justice system, it is sad to say, doesn’t provide justice.

Defining Justice Through the centuries, philosophers have discussed and even at times argued on the meaning of “Justice.” From Plato to Thomas Aquinas to John Lock and beyond, we have sought to define this amorphous concept and even though the term is difficult to define; individual after individual seeks it and works toward it.

Dr. King made powerful declarations including:

• “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,” and
• “We are determined…to work and fight until justice runs down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream,” and
• “True peace is not merely the absence of tension; it is the presence of justice.”

He provided words and actions that changed the world; he inspired a generation to live better lives and stand tall for what each of them believed. He encouraged everyone to stand tall for justice for all.

Dr. King inspired a nation and a world, yet striving for justice does not mean to do it only if it impacts us on a grand scale. Seeking justice for those in our lives, or in our communities is just as important as seeking justice for a nation. Another inspirational leader, Mahatma Gandhi stated, “You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” That change starts in our homes.

Justice at Home Each and every one of us can be that change and bring justice to those in our lives and beyond. How? I believe there are four factors we should consider or do when seeking justice for all.

Inscription at the National Memorial

First, recognize that we are all engines of change and what we say and do can make a difference. Very few people have the oratory skills of Dr. King, but every person has the ability to speak up and ensure that each of us is treated fairly. Our words and actions can bring change with whom we interact every day.

Second, it is important to recognize that change takes time and consistent effort. Very little of worth can develop overnight; there is a constant struggle. Individuals have been trying to achieve justice for all throughout the centuries, some giving their lives in the effort, including Dr. King and Gandhi. And even with the ultimate sacrifice of their lives, we still have injustice in the world. But because of those giants of justice and many others, life has improved and we have more opportunities on achieving justice, but there is still a long road to travel.

Third, take the time to learn about the issue(s) you are passionate about. Do you care about how children are treated? Does it matter to you if animals are abused? Does gender or race discrimination infuriate you? Want to make sure that the rule of law is followed? There are any number of issues you can focus on to ensure we are all treated with justice, and learning the basics of an issue you care about can help you focus your time and effort. Remember that it takes time for change thus the knowledge gained and the passion we possess helps us to stay focused through the rough times.

Finally, we must keep in mind that no one is perfect. I have made mistakes, you will make mistakes, and those we are trying to support in achieving justice will make mistakes. We are human, and that is part of the reason that we must always continue to strive for justice. Some of us fall down, and when that happens, it is time to stand back up, help those who are next to us stand up, brush ourselves off and continue the struggle. But there are those who have no interest in justice and instead try to destroy any successes. We must continue the struggle against those individuals, while acknowledging their human weaknesses and shortcomings.

Justice for All Everywhere Striving for justice at home and in our communities creates a foundation for others to build upon now and in the future. Bringing justice for all provides support for each person and will develop an interlocking network that can grow and build in momentum and success. Seeking justice for all in our lives can bring progress for those in our lives and be transformative for everyone.

The post Seeking Justice appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

You’ve been robbed. Don’t reach for your wallet or your car keys; they are not missing. But all the information in your wallet and the information about how you finance your car has been stolen.

The data breach — aka hack — of the credit agency Equifax resulted in millions of people’s personal information, including yours, being stolen. These thieves infiltrated the Equifax system because of a flaw in a software program known as Apache Struts, which is used to build web applications. Equifax was aware of the flaw and how to fix it but did nothing for months.

All the information in your wallet and the information about how you finance your car have been stolen.

Apparently, the reason for the delay was because the fix was both labor intensive and costly. It required Equifax employees to download the newest version of Struts and then rebuild all the older versions. So, the fix was put on the back burner. The company knew that a hacker could easily get your information, but decided to take the risk.

Of course, hackers then stole all the personal information Equifax had on you and 145.5 million other Americans. Essentially they took the personal information for everyone with a Social Security number.

So, maybe you believe every company can or will be hacked. But how did those thieves decrypt the code protecting all your information? When asked about it at a congressional hearing, Richard Smith, the former president of Equifax, who had announced his sudden retirement just a week before he was to testify before the Senate Banking Committee, admitted, “To be very specific, this data was not encrypted.”

More Scams After failing to protect us, Equifax then directed anyone who contacted them to external websites that were supposed to inform people as to whether or not their records were stolen. However, many of these websites turned out to be scam sites, created to steal more of your information.

Before they told anyone about the data breach, a number of Equifax executives sold company stock, raising questions from federal regulators whether they had committed some form of insider trading. Smith claimed in his testimony that the executives were unaware of the breach at the time they sold their stock, but the delay in telling the public raises real questions.

The former president of Equifax admitted, “To be very specific, this data was not encrypted.”

These hackers have stolen your name, your mother’s maiden name, Social Security number, driver’s license information, birth date, past and present addresses, and of course credit-card information. Equifax basically made it easy for them. ”They only had to hack one unprotected company to get all of your personal information,” said John Sriro, CIPP/US, an expert on cyber law at Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss, who recently blogged about this situation.

Sriro continued, “While you can cancel a credit card fairly easily your personal information is perpetually valuable. You can’t change your birthdate or Social Security number; they will always be the same. In that vein Sriro said that everyone over the age of 62 needs to go to https://www.ssa.gov/myaccount/ and open a my Social Security Account. According to Sriro even if an individual is not planning to take Social Security when they turn 62, they need to open the account to prevent whoever the hackers sells your information to from opening an account in your name and selling your hard earned Social Security money.

Sriro also suggests that everyone download a current version of their credit history and give it a careful review.

Also, he suggests that everyone consider freezing their credit. That way, if anyone tries to use your personal information to take out a loan, credit or services in your name, the creditor will be unable to pull your credit report, thereby creating a significant hurdle for creditors to extend credit in your name.

Sriro says you need to monitor your bank records, credit card charges and other bills carefully and if you notice something out the ordinary contact the respective company immediately.

We need to demand that Congress end the free-for-all sharing of consumers’ financial information.

More Investigations Needed The way Equifax has handled this breach calls for multiple investigations, and not just Congress. Federal and state prosecutors and the Bureau of Consumer Protection need to take a close look at what happened.

Moreover, we need to demand that Congress end to the free-for-all sharing of consumers’ financial information.

Also, the use of our Social Security numbers as the lynch pin of credit reporting must end. Consumers must be given free access to their credit report at any time and notified of any changes that are made to their credit history.

Credit reports should be “frozen by default” and should only be partly or widely disseminated with an individual’s blessing. Finally, we need to end the current culture that puts the interests of credit reporting agencies above our privacy.

This blog posting was first published in Detroit Deadline. Reprinted with permission.

The post Equifax and Protecting Your Credit appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

All over the planet, a traffic crash is called an accident. It doesn’t matter if it is a vehicle hitting a tree without causing any injury, or a person getting injured, or worse case, someone dying in a crash; all of these collisions are routinely called accidents. However, with 94% of traffic crashes caused by human error,[1] the vast majority of crashes are never really “accidents.”

94% of traffic crashes caused by human error.

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an accident as: “an unforeseen and unplanned event or circumstance.”[2] Yet most traffic crashes are due to human error, whether it is because of impaired driving, distracted driving, speeding or even driver inattention. A crash because of impaired driving is not unforeseen. A crash because of distracted driving is not unforeseen, nor is a crash caused by speeding or drowsy driving. A fatality because a person didn’t wear a seat belt is foreseeable. All of these actions are known to cause crashes and fatalities. The end result of these actions is foreseeable and preventable.

In the United States there are over 30,000 deaths annually because of traffic crashes. Globally 1.25 million people die, with someone dying every 25 seconds in a traffic crash. Many of us have become accustomed to hearing about a “traffic accident” and since it is an “accident,” there’s nothing that can be done about the problem. We just hope and pray that it doesn’t befall us or someone we love.

Does a Change in Words Matter? Properly identifying an issue allows us to take action and remedy the situation. When a patient goes to a doctor because of a cough and chest pain, and the doctor tells the patient that the patient has a cold; there is very little the doctor can do to treat the illness. Yet when the person has pneumonia, there are specific steps that a doctor can take. They are two completely different health problems—one a doctor can treat, the other a doctor cannot. Traffic “accidents” are unforeseen and unplanned – not treatable. But causes for most crashes are identifiable and thus preventable, they should be thought of as crashes.

Words matter when discussing what happened and ultimately how to respond. Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer did a study with participants watching a video of a crash and then being asked: “About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” When the word “smashed” was used in place of other words such as collided or hit, the participants provided higher estimates of speeds and a week later when asked if they saw broken glass, the participants responded yes, even though there was no broken glass present in the film. [3]

Words matter when discussing what happened and ultimately how to respond.

A New York Times article[4] provides some of the historical basis on when using the word accident for a traffic crash started:

The word [accident] was introduced into the lexicon of manufacturing and other industries in the early 1900s, when companies were looking to protect themselves from the costs of caring for workers who were injured on the job, according to Peter Norton, a historian and associate professor at the University of Virginia’s department of engineering.

The business community even developed a cartoon character — the foolish Otto Nobetter, who suffered frequent accidents that left him maimed, immolated, crushed, and even blown up. The character was meant to warn workers about the risks of inattention.

“Relentless safety campaigns started calling these events ‘accidents,’ which excused the employer of responsibility,” Dr. Norton said.

When traffic deaths spiked in the 1920s, a consortium of auto-industry interests, including insurers, borrowed the word to shift the focus away from the cars themselves. “Automakers were very interested in blaming reckless drivers,” Dr. Norton said.

But over time, he said, the word has come to exonerate the driver, too, with “accident” seeming like a lightning strike, something beyond anyone’s control. The word accident, he added, is seen by its critics as having “normalized mass death in this country,” whereas “the word ‘crash’ is a resurrection of the enormity of this catastrophe.”

Responsibility for a Crash Matters Consider two cars colliding into each other, with a driver and passenger dying in one of the cars. It is determined that the surviving driver was responsible for the collision and that he had been drinking and then drove with an illegal blood alcohol level. The driver is now in court with a charge of vehicular homicide. That driver is at fault for the crash, and he should be held accountable for his actions. If the crash was an accident, then there is no fault and no one is responsible. The death was just because of bad luck; it was unforeseeable.

That above statement is as far from the truth as it can be stated. An impaired driver can easily prevent a resulting death by choosing to not drive or by having an alternative plan such as a sober friend to drive. When we call it an accident, it lessens the fault and ignores the resulting pain the family and friends of those who are killed because of that impaired driver and the driver’s choices. Using the word “accident” can even prevent family members from healing.[5] Similarly, when a driver is speeding or is texting while driving, these are potentially life-altering choices being made by that driver. The resulting crash is because of that driver’s choices, a crash that could have been prevented with the proper choice.

The AP changed the AP Stylebook’s definition of accident.

This does not mean that all crashes result in criminal charges or even death, but even then most of the crashes are preventable and thus not unforeseen. A fender bender that happens because the driver is too close to the car in front of him is easily preventable by just allowing sufficient space between the two cars. The driver didn’t intend the crash, but the crash was foreseeable and preventable.

Raising Awareness Awareness has been growing on using the word “crash” or “collision” rather than “accident.” A public awareness campaign called “Drop the A Word” has grown in impact, with some states changing their legislative language, and some media outlets not using the “A” word when reporting traffic crashes.[6] In fact the Associated Press (AP) updated its use of the word accident and now acknowledges that fault can be an important factor in using the correct word. The AP changed the AP Stylebook’s[7] definition of accident, with it now defined as:

accident, crash – Generally acceptable for automobile and other collisions and wrecks. However, when negligence is claimed or proven, avoid accident, which can be read by some as a term exonerating the person responsible. In such cases, use crash, collision or other terms. See collide, collision.

Change is coming and there is no question that it will take time. But it is that change that can allow people to recognize that we all have a role to play in traffic safety. The change can allow us to work towards a culture of prevention, not one of acceptance. Whether it is as a driver, a passenger or a pedestrian, we can all take steps to stay focused and make our roads safer.

Footnotes: [1] Critical Reasons for Crashes Investigated in the National Motor Vehicle Crash Causation Survey, Traffic Safety Facts, February 2015, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 812 115. Obtained from: https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/812115 NOTE: This publication does not attempt to assign blame on the driver for causing the crash, it is looking at any errors by the driver.

[2] Obtained from: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accident

[3] Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory, Eliabeth Loftus and John Palmer, Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Volume 13, Issue 5. Obtained at: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022537174800113#!

[4] It’s No Accident: Advocates Want to Speak of Car ‘Crashes’ Instead, Matt Richtel, May 22, 2016, New York Times. Obtained at: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/science/its-no-accident-advocates-want-to-speak-of-car-crashes-instead.html?mcubz=0&_r=0

[5] Motor vehicle Crash versus Accident: A change in terminology is necessary, Alan Stewart and Janice Lord, August 202, Journal of Traumatic Stress. Obtained from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1023/A:1016260130224/full

[6] See also “Let’s Talk About Crashes.” TIRF & DIAD, December 2017, Traffic Injury Research Foundation. Obtained from: http://tirf.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/Lets-Talk-About-Crashes-9.pdf

[7] Ready to lowercase ‘internet’ and ‘web’, Lauren Easton, April 2, 2016. “The AP Stylebook is the definitive resource for journalists and a must-have reference for writers, editors students and professionals. It provides fundamental guidelines for spelling, language, punctuation, usage and journalistic style.” Obtained at: https://blog.ap.org/products-and-services/ready-to-lowercase-internet-and-web

The post Traffic Crashes: They’re Not “Accidents” appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

Every year at this time thousands of individuals make New Year’s resolutions to improve their lives and be a better person. Whether it is to lose weight, stop smoking or exercise more, we are setting goals to improve our lives. Yet, many people will ignore making the easiest life-saving changes for one of the most dangerous activities we will do every day: Driving on our roads.

Every year at this time thousands of individuals make New Year’s resolutions.

The Time Has Come “The time has come,” the Walrus said, “To talk of many things:” Of drunk and drugged and distracted driving; of drowsy driving and safety belts—and why death and destruction are common sights on our roads and whether you can bring about change in this new year. In the poem, The Walrus and the Carpenter by Lewis Carroll, the Walrus spoke of a number of nonsense items, such as shoes, ships, sealing wax and flying pigs. But now in 2018, the time has come to talk of serious topics, all of which could easily impact you in your life.

A Global Epidemic Did you know that around the world road traffic crashes are a major cause of death among all age groups and the leading cause of death among those aged 15–29 years? Globally approximately 1.3 million people die every year on the world’s roads and between 20 and 50 million sustain non-fatal injuries.[1]

Did you know that over 90% of highway crashes can be tied to human choice or error? [2] What can be more important than to commit to be a safer driver on our roads, the kind of commitment that can save your life and the lives of your family and friends. When a person makes the choice to drink and then drive, or doesn’t get sufficient sleep before driving, or checks a text message while driving, they are inviting a traffic crash. In 2016 there were 37,461 fatalities on U.S. roadways, with 10,497 from impaired driving and 3,450 because of distracted driving. This doesn’t include the tens of thousands that were injured because of these activities. It is estimated that drowsy driving has resulted in over 6,400 deaths and 71,000 injuries.[3]

New Year Resolutions The wonderful thing about all of this is that these changes can be fairly straightforward and easy to do. The hard part is making the commitment and staying with it. Here are some New Year’s resolutions I hope you will make and keep throughout the year. (They are not listed in terms of importance as each one can make a difference.)

1. Never drink alcohol and then drive. Even one drink can start to affect your abilities to drive safely.
2. Don’t use other drugs and then drive. This can include many prescription medications. Some prescriptions even include the instruction to avoid driving or using heavy machinery after use. A car or pickup truck is a heavy machine!
3. Always wear a seat belt, no matter where you are sitting in a vehicle. It can reduce fatal and non-fatal injuries for front seat occupants by 45-50% and by 25-75% for those in the rear.
4. Don’t use a phone (“hands-free” or not) while driving. Hands-free or not, the mind is distracted and thus your ability to be safe is reduced.
5. Don’t speed. Speeding is one of the main contributing causes of death and injury. As the average speed increases, so too does the likelihood of having a road crash.
6. Always wear a good-quality helmet when riding a motorcycle. A helmet can reduce the risk of death by 40% and severe injury by 70%.
7. Always use proper child restraints, including child safety seats and booster seats.
8. Always get sufficient sleep before driving. Your age will help determine what is a good quality night of sleep. For teens, somewhere between 8 and 10 hours are needed, with adults needing 7-8 hours.

You can make a difference.

It is Up to You None of these potential resolutions are difficult, whether it is “click it” (safety belts), or not drinking and driving or putting a cell phone away while driving; these are all steps that we can take every day of the year. These are all steps that can provide a safer year for you and for me. With 90% of all crashes caused by human error, imagine the number of lives we can save and the reduction of serious injuries that would result by all of us being consciously aware of our actions and changing our behavior. What do you say? Are you ready for these life saving New Year’s resolutions? 2018 can be your year to be a safer person; it is up to you.

Footnotes: [1] 10 Facts on Global Road Safety, World Health Organization, obtained at: http://www.who.int/features/factfiles/roadsafety/en/

[2] Human Errors Drive Growing Death Toll In Auto Crashes, National Public Radio, October 20, 2016. Obtained at: https://www.npr.org/2016/10/20/498406570/tech-human-errors-drive-growing-death-toll-in-auto-crashes

[3] National Sleep Foundation, Drowsy Driving Prevention Week 2017

The post 2018 – Your Year to Make a Difference appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

The Board of Trustees of the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence (ISTJ) has enthusiastically approved the creation of the “Peggy Hora/Michael Jones Award for Distinguished Judicial Service,” to be presented to “judges who are making outstanding contributions to the administration of justice in a therapeutic jurisprudence mode.”

Judge Peggy Hora (Ret.)

Currently Judge Hora (Ret.) is President and Co-Founder of the Justice Speakers’ Institute, LLC (JSI), an essential resource for speakers, trainers, consultants, and writers on local to international justice issues.

When asked about receiving the award, Judge Hora stated: “I could not be more thrilled. It’s such an honor to be recognized for one’s work by the international community. Therapeutic Jurisprudence has been an important part of my work and watching it being employed all over the world is so fulfilling. I’m humbled.”

Professor of Law David Wexler and one of the Fathers of Therapeutic Jurisprudence noted that: “Judge Peggy Hora was to me an obvious choice for the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence to name an award after. Judge Hora was an early drug treatment court judge, searching for ways that drug courts could better perform their function. Her search led her to work in therapeutic jurisprudence looking at how the law and its application could be improved by the use of psychology, criminology and the like.”

Professor Wexler continued: “When Bruce and I fifteen years ago wrote our book Judging in a Therapeutic Key: Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Courts, we dedicated the book to Judge Hora, Judge Schma, and then – Judge Randy Fritzler, for “starting us off on this journey.” In essence, Peggy brought TJ to the judiciary — brought it from academia to practice —and has stuck with her dedicated leadership all these many years.”

When asked why an award named for Judge Hora, David Yamada, International Society of Therapeutic Jurisprudemce Board Chair, said, “We wanted to name an award that would honor judges who are doing outstanding work in a TJ-mode.”

Therapeutic Jurisprudence concentrates on the law’s impact on emotional life and psychological well-being. Its mission is to study the extent to which substantive rules, legal procedures, and the role of legal actors (lawyers and judges among others) produce therapeutic or anti-therapeutic consequences for individuals involved in the legal process. Once noted, the goal is to enhance therapeutic outcomes and reduce anti-therapeutic ones. It requires an ethic of care and an expansion of the usual roles of attorneys and judges to include the use of heightened interpersonal skills.

Judge Hora noted that TJ is useful in so many parts of the law. It can be employed by judges, lawyers, professors, the corrections community and in other professional situations. TJ had grown from an idea hatched by Prof. David B. Wexler in 1987 and was nurtured by him in collaboration with Prof. Bruce Winick. To see it now as a worldwide phenomenon is simply awe-inspiring.

During 2018, ISTJ will solicit nominations for the first Hora/Jones Award(s). This will join the Wexler/Winick Distinguished Service Award for outstanding contributions to the Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ) community in allowing it to formally recognize those who are advancing TJ in significant ways.

Judge Hora: A Global Leader on Justice Issues Judge Hora (Ret.) was a Senior Judicial Fellow for the National Drug Court Institute and the Global Centre for Drug Treatment Courts, and a former dean of the B.E. Witkin Judicial College of California. She also is an Honorary President of the International Therapeutic Jurisprudence Society, dedicated to advancing legal and interdisciplinary scholarship.

Judge Hora remains a global leader in solution-focused courts.

Judge Hora remains a global leader in solution-focused courts. She was a visiting scholar at the University of Tasmania School of Law, and the 2009-2010 Thinker in Residence appointed by the Premier of South Australia to recommend policies for their justice system.

Judge Hora frequently speaks at conferences and provides hands-on training and consulting to jurisdictions worldwide including the United Kingdom, Israel, Chile, Japan, New Zealand, Russia, Australia, and South Africa.

Appellate courts and nearly 200 journals and law reviews have cited her work. She recently authored a chapter on drug courts in the 5th Edition of the ASAM Principles of Addiction Medicine, and regularly blogs and creates podcasts for JSI.

Born in Oakland and raised in Castro Valley, California, Judge Hora graduated from Chabot College, Hayward; California State University, East Bay in Hayward; and the University of San Francisco School of Law. She resides in Walnut Creek.

About the International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence The International Society for Therapeutic Jurisprudence is a new, non-profit, learned association established to advance Therapeutic Jurisprudence, a school of legal philosophy and practice that examines the therapeutic and anti-therapeutic properties of laws and public policies, legal and dispute resolution systems, and legal institutions.

About the Justice Speakers Institute The Justice Speakers Institute (JSI) is the essential resource for speakers, trainers, consultants, analysts, researchers and writers on justice issues – criminal and civil law; procedural justice and therapeutic jurisprudence; local to international jurisdictions. The founders and associates include more than a dozen award-winning, internationally recognized experts with decades of experience who have spoken, written, or consulted on over 150 subjects impacting the justice system. It is the mission of the Justice Speakers Institute to promote excellence in education, training and professional development on justice issues worldwide. To learn more go to: JusticeSpeakersInstitute.com.

The post New International Award Named After JSI President Judge Peggy Hora appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.

View Details

You’re being followed.

Everywhere you go and how long you stay is being tracked. It’s not paranoia, it’s reality and the spy is in your pocket. It’s your smartphone.

Within every smartphone is a software that tracks you.

Within every smartphone is a software that tracks you. All your data is transmitted, analyzed and exploited by Google, Apple and various apps companies. Deep within your privacy settings this information reveals everything about you, including where you live and work. And if you own an Android smartphone it even records things that you say without your knowledge.

Once your phone has gathered this information, where does it go? An Android smartphone sends all of the tracking information straight to Google. Apple says that the tracking information it collects is kept solely on the smartphone and will not be revealed to anyone without the user’s consent. However, both Apple and Google also collect a significant amount of personal data, beyond your location, related to your use of the smartphone.

So, how do these smart phones track you? Android smartphones, regularly ping Google’s servers with the position of your phone even when you’re not using your it. Apple smartphones, like Android, tracks your location by using cell towers and wi-fi hotspots. According to a Carnegie Mellon study, your smartphone does this thousands of times a week.

What’s the point to following you like this? According to Google, your phone is more perceptive telling you how long your commute will be, or where the nearest gas station or restaurant is. Apple claims the feature helps improve location services on iPhones.

And it’s not just Apple and Google getting access to this information. Your wireless company and many of the apps you download can also access the data. In fact, anyone who has, or who can get, physical access to your phone can see it by going to your privacy settings.

Digital e-healthcare in order to connect patients to medical services via smartphone

Sometimes Illegal According to Jon Sriro an expert in cyber law and co-chair of Jaffe Raitt Heuer & Weiss’s Privacy and Datasecurity Practice Group, smartphones apps enable their companies to track your movements and collect data about you for a variety of commercial and, sometimes illegal purposes.

He notes that although app developers have to post privacy policies and are required to seek permission concerning the level of access to your smartphone data, many people just ignore these warnings giving unrestricted access. This allows these apps to collect data, which may not be relevant to their functioning.

Granting these apps unrestricted access puts you at risk. According to Sriro, its apps like the one from your local local pizza company that are the most dangerous.

Hacking Risk The credit card number you share through the app can be very vulnerable to hacking.

In order to protect you the pizza company should encrypt the data while it is in transit/being transmitted and it should have a data security plan. Sriro tells me these plans help keep company information secure by identifying the type of information being collected and focusing the company to adopt sufficient administrative, operational and technical safeguards in light of the type and sensitivity of the information collected.

Although these efforts may not prevent a company from being hacked, they will certainly minimize the risk and the potential harm that could result.

However, Sriro said many small and medium sized companies, like your local pizza place don’t have data security plans. They may not know what one is or have ever considered creating one.

That puts you at risk.

That puts you at risk. Worse according to Sriro the companies who don’t have date security may not even know when they have been hacked. Which means that your credit card could be purchasing a nice jet ski for someone in Florida even as you read this article.

Unfortunately there is not a great deal you can do about it other then shutting down the spy in your pocket.

But there’s some measures you can take to get a little more privacy.

To turn off the location feature on iPhone, follow these steps:

• In “Settings,” select “Privacy”
• From the “Privacy” screen, select “Location Services”
• From “Location Services” scroll past all of your apps go “System Services”
• From “System Services,” select “Frequent Locations”
• Slide the Toggle by “Frequent Locations” from right to left to turn off the setting

If you want to turn off the “Location History” feature on an Android device, do this:

• In “Settings,” select “Location”
• From “Location,” select “Google Location Settings”
• Select “Location Reporting” and “Location History,” and move the slider to the left to turn the settings off in each page.

This blog posting was first published in Deadline Detroit. Reprinted with permission.

The post The Smartphone Invasion of Our Privacy and Steps to Take appeared first on Justice Speakers Institute.