CrimProf Blog

Unger on Brain Searches

Wayne Unger (Gonzaga University School of Law) has posted The Constitutionality of Brain Searches (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 50, No. 4, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

If technology could read your mind and capture your thoughts as storable and processable data, would that frighten you? Recent advancements in brain-computer interfaces will likely make mind-reading a reality, and if it does, it presents the last stand or final frontier in the battle for privacy protections. It is well established that an individual must be able to retreat into their home and be free from government intrusion. But if an individual cannot retreat into their own mind free from government intrusion, then true solitude will become extinct. In a future state where brain-computer interfaces can actively decode an individual’s ideas, thoughts, and beliefs—neurodata—what constitutional protections, if any, exist to preclude government intrusion and protect the freedom of thought?

Continue reading

Bamieh on Equity in Electronic Monitoring

Ryanne Bamieh has posted Seeking Equity in Electronic Monitoring: Mounting a Bearden Challenge (Yale Law Journal, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In the 1983 landmark case of Bearden v. Georgia, the Supreme Court established that a court could not revoke a defendant's probation for failure to pay a fine or fee if that defendant established they could not afford it. Yet, even today, many defendants remain incarcerated solely because they lack financial resources. Electronic Monitoring (EM) — heralded as a less restrictive alternative to incarceration — is only available to defendants who can afford stable housing and phone connectivity. This Comment seeks to remedy the disparity that EM imposes on defendants by applying Bearden to courts’ EM requirements.

Pardo on Sufficiency of Evidence

Michael S. Pardo (Georgetown University Law Center) has posted What Makes Evidence Sufficient? (65 Arizona Law Review (Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

When is a party’s evidence sufficient in a civil case? When is the prosecution’s evidence sufficient in a criminal case? The answers to these questions play several important roles—both practical and constitutional—throughout civil and criminal litigation. As a practical matter, a judicial determination that evidence is insufficient may end a case pre-trial (for example, at summary judgment); may end a trial without getting to a jury (resulting in a judgment as a matter of law); or may overturn a jury’s verdict in a civil case or a guilty verdict in a criminal case. As a constitutional matter, the right to a jury trial in civil cases depends on whether parties have sufficient evidence to get to trial, and criminal defendants have a due process right to not be convicted based on insufficient evidence. Despite the importance of the sufficiency issue, the legal doctrine separating sufficient from insufficient evidence is imprecise and unclear, and judicial reasoning applying the doctrine in particular cases is often frustratingly opaque.

Continue reading

Koningisor on Police Secrecy Exceptionalism

Christina Koningisor (University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law) has posted Police Secrecy Exceptionalism (Columbia Law Review, Vol. 123, No. 615, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Every state has a set of transparency statutes that bind state and local governments. In theory, these statutes apply with equal force to every agency. Yet, in practice, law enforcement agencies enjoy a wide variety of unique secrecy protections denied to other government entities. Legislators write police-specific exemptions into public records laws. Judges develop procedural approaches that they apply exclusively to police and prosecutorial records. Police departments claim special secrecy protections from the bottom up.

This Article maps the legal infrastructure of police-records secrecy. It draws upon the text of the public records statutes in all fifty states, along with case law and public records datasets, to illuminate the ways that judges, legislators, and police officers use transparency statutes to shield law enforcement agencies from public view. It argues that this robust web of police secrecy protections operates as a kind of police secrecy exceptionalism, analogous in some ways to the exceptional protections granted to national security secrets in the federal context.

Continue reading

Colgan on Illegality and Predation

Beth A. Colgan (University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law) has posted Illegality in a World of Predation (New York University Law Review, Vol. 98, No. 246, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Professor Bernadette Atuahene's theoretical framework for "stategraft" denotes actions by which state agents transfer cash or property from the people to the state in violation of the law or basic human rights norms. Because illegality is central to stategraft, attention to it may push other forms of state predation--those that are legal or whose legality are uncertain--out of the realm of reform given the dearth of funding for legal advocacy and difficulties in marshalling lawmaker attention. This response suggests, however, that consideration of stategraft provides opportunities for advocates to push back against legal, or not yet illegal, predatory practices. It does so by looking to recent advocacy efforts related to two types of predatory behaviors outside the bounds of stategraft: the use of fines and fees, and civil forfeiture practices.

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Procedure eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Paper	Downloads
1.	An Equity Action Plan for Marijuana: The Biden Administration’s Opportunity to Advance Equity Through Cannabis Reform Cat Packer Distinguished Cannabis Policy Practitioner in Residence, Drug Enforcement and Policy Center, Moritz College of Law, The Ohio State University Date Posted: 19 May 2023 [new to top ten]	230
2.	Oklahoma v. Castro-Huerta -- Rebalancing Federal-State-Tribal Power Stacy Leeds, Robert J. Miller, Kevin K. Washburn and Derrick Beetso Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law, Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, University of Iowa College of Law and Arizona State University (ASU) - Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law Date Posted: 26 Apr 2023 [1st last week]	173
3.	The Criminal Metaverse Eldar Haber University of Haifa - Faculty of Law Date Posted: 10 Apr 2023 [4th last week]	144
4.	Racial Bias, Accomplice Liability, and the Felony Murder Rule: A National Empirical Study G. Ben Cohen, Justin D. Levinson and Koichi Hioki University of Iowa -- College of Law, University of Hawaii at Manoa - William S. Richardson School of Law and Kobe University - Graduate School of Business Administration Date Posted: 19 Apr 2023 [5th last week]	116
5.	Sentencing in an Era of Plea Bargains Jeffrey Bellin and Jenia Iontcheva Turner William & Mary Law School and Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law Date Posted: 30 Mar 2023 [6th last week]	113
6.	Rights Violations as Punishment Kate Weisburd George Washington Law School Date Posted: 24 Apr 2023 [8th last week]	71
7.	Traffickinghub: Reforming Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act to Address Pornhub’s Exploitation of Sex Trafficking Victims Hannah DePoy Hayden University of Louisville, Louis D. Brandeis School of Law, Students Date Posted: 13 Apr 2023 [9th last week]	66
8.	This History of Bans on Types of Arms Before 1900 David B. Kopel, David B. Kopel and Joseph Greenlee Independence InstituteDenver University - Sturm College of Law and The Heartland Institute Date Posted: 01 May 2023 [new to top ten]	57
9.	The Eighth Amendment and Medical Consensus on Gender Confirming Care: Reexamining the Dissentals in Edmo v. Corizon John Parsi University of Nebraska College of Law Date Posted: 02 May 2023 [new to top ten]	57
10.	Political Corruption Michael D. Gilbert and Deborah Hellman University of Virginia School of Law and University of Virginia School of Law Date Posted: 24 Apr 2023	57

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Procedure eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Paper	Downloads
1.	The Use and Misuse of Section 144 CrPC Vrinda Bhandari, Abhinav Sekhri, Natasha Maheshwari and Madhav Aggarwal Independent, Delhi High Court, Independent and Independent Date Posted: 22 Mar 2023	1,319
2.	The End of Batson? Rulemaking, Race, and Criminal Procedure Reform Thomas Frampton and Brandon Osowski University of Virginia School of Law and University of Virginia (UVA) School of Law, University of Virginia (UVA) School of Law, Students Date Posted: 27 Apr 2023	273
3.	Proving Actionable Racial Disparity Under the California Racial Justice Act Colleen V. Chien, W. David Ball and William A. Sundstrom Santa Clara University - School of Law, Santa Clara School of Law and Santa Clara University - Leavey School of Business - Economics Department Date Posted: 27 Mar 2023	156
4.	Evidence Rules for Decarceration Erin Collins University of Richmond School of Law Date Posted: 28 Apr 2023	153
5.	Overworking Public Defenders Aviv Caspi Stanford University Date Posted: 10 Apr 2023	123
6.	Lawfulness and Police Use of Facial Recognition in the UK: Article 8 ECHR and Bridges v South Wales Police Nora Ni Loideain Information Law & Policy Centre Date Posted: 21 Apr 2023 [7th last week]	114
7.	Sentencing in an Era of Plea Bargains Jeffrey Bellin and Jenia Iontcheva Turner William & Mary Law School and Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law Date Posted: 30 Mar 2023 [8th last week]	113
8.	Five Faces of the Public Defender Scott Howe Chapman University, The Dale E. Fowler School of Law Date Posted: 07 Apr 2023 [6th last week]	112
9.	Role of Forensic Science in Rape and Murder Cases: Measures for Viable Results J Lakshmi Charan Andhra University Date Posted: 17 Feb 2023	103
10.	The Public Voice of the Defender Kay Levine and Russell M. Gold Emory University School of Law and University of Alabama School of Law Date Posted: 27 Apr 2023 [new to top ten]	100

 

Chiao & Harel on Disobeying Law

Vincent Chiao and Alon Harel (University of Toronto - Faculty of Law and Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Law) have posted Disobedience as Such (Jurisprudence, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Legal philosophers often ask whether a person has a reason to obey the law simply because it is the law. We ask the contrary question: does a person have a reason to disobey the law simply because it is the law? Many philosophers who have considered the question of disobedience have focused on injustice; others have defended disobedience on libertarian or anarchist grounds. In contrast, we argue that there is a content-independent reason to disobey the law even when it is not unjust, illegitimate, or otherwise undesirable.

Legal philosophers generally agree that law claims peremptory authority, but they also generally agree that any duty to obey the law is substantially more limited. We argue that insofar as the law makes inflated claims to authority, it generates a content-independent reason to disobey. This anti-authoritarian principle is grounded in the virtue of clearly communicating one’s political commitments to others within a democratic society. By disobeying, one communicates one’s conviction that the law makes inflated claims to authority. We show how our account of disobedience as such is distinct from more familiar theories of anarchism and civil disobedience and argue that it is applicable whether one lives under conditions of justice or injustice.

Price on Trustworthy Criminal Lawmaking

Zachary Price (UC Law, San Francisco) has posted What If Criminal Lawmaking Becomes Trustworthy? (Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 113, No. 4, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

One common theoretical perspective posits that courts should assume a counter-majoritarian role in criminal law because the political process systematically disfavors the interests of criminal suspects and defendants. Recent shifts in the politics of crime, however, complicate this perspective’s assumptions, raising the paradoxical possibility that welcome improvements in the politics of crime will weaken the theoretical case for counter-majoritarian judicial decisions. This essay tentatively considers whether, if at all, courts’ interpretive approach should change in response to any continuing moderation of historic “tough on crime” politics. It suggests that while arguments for narrow construction of criminal statutes will remain strong for the foreseeable future, a more moderate and competitive politics of crime could justify greater judicial deference, at least at the margins and in some limited circumstances, to democratic choices regarding criminal procedure.

Horii & Hirai on Public Support for the Death Penalty in Japan

Hoko Horii and Hitomi Hirai (Van Vollenhoven Institute for Law, Governance and Society and Independent) have posted Public Support for the Death Penalty in Japan: The ‘Impermeability’ Model and the Symbolic Power of the Legal Regime (Australian Journal of Asian Law, Vol. 24, No. 1, Article 11: 1-27, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

This article explores why Japan has retained the death penalty, based on an analysis of both written sources and empirical data collected during the authors’ fieldwork. The findings show that abolitionists claim that the public will reject the death penalty if they are properly informed about the topic, while retentionists argue that public opinion relies on underlying core beliefs about the evilness of crime. We conclude that Japan has retained the death penalty because the public is more likely to take a retentionist position under the influence of ‘symbolic factors’ (that is, societal values and beliefs and perceptions of the political and legal regime). Because of such symbolic factors, their opinion is not likely easily swayed by ‘instrumental factors’ (that is, knowledge and information). We frame this as an impermeability model, where the symbolic variables make public support ‘impermeable’ to abolitionist activism, exposure to new information, and international trends.

DeMichele et al. on Predictive Biases and the PSA

Matthew DeMichele, Ian Silver, Ryan Labrecque, Debbie Dawes, Pamela K. Lattimore, and Stephen Tueller (RTI International, RTI International, RTI International, RTI International, RTI International - Headquarters - Research Triangle Park and RTI International - Headquarters - Research Triangle Park) have posted Testing Predictive Biases at the Intersection of Race-Ethnicity and Sex: A Multi-Site Evaluation of a Pretrial Risk Assessment Tool on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Pretrial assessments provide courtroom actors with objective information about the likelihood that someone who has been charged with a criminal offense would engage in criminal behavior if released prior to trial. Although prior research supports the ability of assessments to predict pretrial outcomes, there are concerns that assessments may inadvertently exacerbate racial-ethnic and sex disparities found in the larger criminal legal system. In the current study, we conduct a multi-site predictive bias tests of a widely used pretrial instrument—the Public Safety Assessment (PSA)—across six racial-ethnic and sex groups (i.e., White males, White females, Black males, Black females, Hispanic males, Hispanic females). Study results support the PSA as a valid and consistent predictor of failure to appear, new criminal activity, and new violent criminal activity across these six racial-ethnic and sex groups. These findings support the use the PSA and identify several areas for future research.

Westen on Intentionally Harming Others Without Benefit to Oneself

Peter K. Westen (University of Michigan Law School) has posted Intentionally Harming Others Without Benefit to Oneself (Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 20, No. 1, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Is it wrong in itself to purposely harm others without any benefit to oneself? I examine this question through the lens of an enigmatic provision of the Model Penal Code, which proposes that it be an offense to purposefully obtain property of another “by threatening to inflict any harm that would not benefit the actor.” I argue that the act of inflicting harm without benefit to oneself is not inherently wrong because (i) in contrast to “prima facie torts,” which consist solely of unjustified harms, harms that do not benefit actors are not necessarily unjustified, given that they may justifiably benefit third parties, and (ii) contrary to the “abuse of rights” doctrine, any malice evidenced by inflicting harm without benefit to oneself does not transform justified harms into unjustified harms. Then, after considering and rejecting several reasons for thinking otherwise, I argue that a threat of harm without benefit to oneself is also not not itself a morally wrongful inducement to surrender property.

Farrell & Leong on How Crime Dramas Undermine Miranda

Ian P. Farrell and Nancy Leong (University of Denver Sturm College of Law and University of Denver Sturm College of Law) have posted How Crime Dramas Undermine Miranda (Irvine Law Review, Vol. 14, 2024, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

In the half-century since the Supreme Court decided Miranda v. Arizona, custodial interrogations have become a mainstay of popular culture. Even casual viewers of police procedurals will be exposed to hundreds of depicted arrests, interrogations, and other law enforcement conduct. It has become commonplace for courts, commentators, and the general public to assert that people learn about their rights from television.

Yet if people do in fact learn about their criminal procedure rights from television, what they are learning is dangerously inaccurate. In a comprehensive content analysis of ten seasons, totaling 229 episodes, drawn from the two most highly watched crime dramas on television, we demonstrate that these shows mislead viewers about the nature and scope of Miranda and other criminal procedure rights, almost always suggesting that these rights are less protective than they actually are. First—and contrary to widely-held belief—these crime dramas rarely depict the actual administration of the Miranda warning. Second, our research reveals a laundry list of ways that crime dramas undermine Miranda: for every full reading of the Miranda warning, the shows approvingly portray 65 Miranda violations; invocations of Miranda are regularly both rejected and treated as a sign of guilt; other criminal procedure protections are routinely violated with impunity; and defense attorneys are consistently portrayed as unethical and ineffective. In all, the crime dramas we reviewed depicted events that undermine Miranda at a rate of ten times per episode.

Continue reading

Velloze on Infamous Crimes and Grand Juries

Gregory Velloze has posted The Evolution of Infamous Crimes as Relates to Grand Jury Incorporation on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The Fifth Amendment requires grand jury indictments for capital or otherwise infamous crimes. The term “infamous crimes” originally applied to corporal punishments that disqualified convicts from serving as witnesses. But as penitentiaries replaced corporal punishments, and as state libel law continued to use the imputation of infamous crimes as part of civil actions, the phrase ‘infamous crimes’ mutated to a broader term encompassing felonies, even as the incompetency of felon witnesses disappeared. Further complicating matters, the pretrial requirements of due process merged with those required by the Fifth Amendment for infamous crimes. And when the Grand Jury Clause was incorporated through the Due Process Clause, rather than through the Privileges or Immunities Clause, the Supreme Court created an unmanageable requirement that resists incorporation. Based on the indeterminacy of the law at the time of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is unclear what reconstruction of “infamous crimes” can faithfully adhere to the requirements of Due Process, Grand Jury Indictments, and Privileges or Immunities incorporation.

De Silva on Media Consumption and Fear of Crime

Banuka De Silva (General Sir John Kotelawala Defence University) has posted The Relationship between Media Consumption and Fear of Crime: A Comprehensive Review ((2023). JIB Journal., 11(1), 56–62) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

This review comprehensively analyses the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime. Most reviewed studies indicate a positive correlation between media consumption and fear of crime, which can be attributed to the media’s tendency to focus on sensationalised and dramatic crimes and the media’s effect on individuals’ perceptions of reality. However, several studies have found a negative correlation, possibly explained by desensitisation, and heightened awareness among media consumers. Media literacy programmes and responsible reporting are critical to mitigate the public’s fear of crime. By promoting media literacy, individuals can better understand the prevalence of crime and recognise the sensationalised nature of media coverage of crime. Media organisations must report crime-related news accurately and objectively, without exaggerating events, to promote a less distorted view of crime in society. The systematic approach employed in this review and the specific search strategy provides a comprehensive and trustworthy overview of the existing research on the relationship between media consumption and fear of crime, despite the limitations of the search strategy. Additional research is needed to understand better the underlying mechanisms and contextual factors that can influence the relationship. Nonetheless, this analysis offers valuable insights into the effect of media consumption on public perceptions of crime and the resulting implications for public safety. Ultimately, media organisations and individuals must take a responsible approach to consume and reporting crime-related news to promote a more accurate and less distorted view of crime in society. 

Nance & Heise on The School-to-Prison Pipeline

Jason P. Nance and Michael Heise (Southern Methodist University - Dedman School of Law and Cornell Law School) have posted Law Enforcement Officers, Students, and the School-To-Prison Pipeline: a Longitudinal Perspective (54 Arizona State Law Journal 527 (2022)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Recent data indicate that the majority of schools now have regular contact with law enforcement officers, transforming the educational experience for hundreds of thousands of students nationwide. The proper role of police officers in schools, if any, has been hotly debated for years. But this debate was elevated to an unprecedented level during the summer of 2020 following the tragic deaths of George Floyd and others, precipitating national calls to 'defund the police' and leading many school districts to reconsider their relationships with law enforcement agencies. This debate over whether police officers belong in schools continues today. While proponents argue that a police presence is necessary to keep students safe, the existing empirical literature assessing the efficacy of school police officer programs in creating safe environments is mixed at best. The legal and policy implications for students, however, are more established. An increased law enforcement presence in schools has tightened the intersection between schools and the criminal justice system, a phenomenon known as the 'school-to-prison pipeline', and can lead to severe outcomes for students.

Continue reading

Rahman et al. on Cybercrime Impact

Dr. Akim M. Rahman Ph.D (USA) and Islam S. (Canadian University of Bangladesh and American International University) have posted Cybercrime-Impact in Australian-Economy: Policy-Design for Marginalizing the Problem (British Journal of Cyber Criminology, Volume 2 Issue 1, May 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Today’s technology-driven human society(s) country-wise are counted more than ever before, and Australia's society is no exception. Tech-users here compete for comparative time-saving options for marginalizing operating costs. It has resulted in huge data usage and a high number of users and devices, which has attracted criminals to take advantage, which is called cybercrime. In addressing cybercrime, Australia, like other countries, is not out of control of laws. However, laws like cybercrime in our society are not always for absolutely cutting the crime. Thus, besides having a cybercrime law in place, Australia needs a piecemeal approach in practice where a department may vary from the approaches of other departments. With awareness about risky online behaviors and options, tech users as defenders are needed to invest their own efforts. Voluntary Insurance (VI) is proposed as a new product in the network-service market. This study has laid out the foundation of the VI proposal underpinning Akim’s model using the Theory of Consumer Choice and Behaviors and Welfare Analysis. The presence of VI as a new product in the network-service market can ensure the tech-user’s own efforts to be on the safe side, where approaches to having VI vary from department to department. Having access to the VI and the network service market’s efforts on promoting awareness, the tech user’s actual utility received is the sum of utility received from awareness and own effort and utility received from cybercrime law. Any changes to services received from the joint efforts may make tech users vulnerable. Welfare analysis shows tech-users' actions—awareness and own effort—besides cybercrime law can create net social gain, which largely depends on tech-users' own actions. The tech user’s economic surplus is greater than government expenses for the implementation of cybercrime law in Australia. Net loss to Australia is the sum of deadweight loss and net loss to technology producers for underutilized resources.

Bennardo & Glover on Crimes Against Probate

Kevin Bennardo and Mark Glover (University of North Carolina School of Law and University of Wyoming College of Law) have posted Crimes Against Probate (75 Florida Law Review 357 (2023)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Policymakers have increasingly turned their attention to wrongdoing that affects wills, such as the forgery of wills, the procurement of wills through coercion or deceit, and the destruction or suppression of wills. In particular, they have attempted to deter this misconduct by punishing wrongdoers through new forms of criminal and civil liability. Because the United States is on the precipice of the largest intergenerational wealth transfer in history, a significant portion of which will take place through wills, these attempts of deterrence are well-intentioned. However, their implementation has been flawed.

These implementation difficulties stem from the fact that a will has no legal effect until the testator’s death. Because the consequences of misconduct affecting wills are delayed until after the victim’s demise, policymakers have stretched traditional conceptions of criminal law and tort law to fit situations to which they do not easily apply. Specifically, they have created crimes akin to theft that punish conduct that does not deprive the testator of property rights during life and torts that remedy property harms inflicted upon a deceased victim who arguably can suffer no more harms. Current conceptions of criminal and civil liability for wrongdoing affecting wills are therefore riddled with theoretical and doctrinal shortcomings.

Continue reading

Harmon on Police Orders

Rachel Harmon (University of Virginia School of Law) has posted Law and Orders (Law and Orders, 123 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (2023)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Coercive policing is conducted mostly by means of commands, and officers usually cannot use force unless they have first issued an order. Yet, despite widespread concern about force and coercion in policing, commands are both underregulated and misunderstood. Officers have no clear legal authority to give many common commands, almost no departmental guidance about how or when to issue them, and almost no legal scrutiny for many commands they give. Scholars rarely study commands, and when they do, they get them wrong. As a result of vague law and inadequate analysis, basic questions about police commands—what role they play, where officers get authority to issue them, and how law regulates them—remain unanswered. Instead, officers interact with the public in a legal gray zone, a recipe for illegitimacy and conflict. This Article offers initial answers to these questions.

Continue reading

Johnson on White Supremacy from the Bench

Vida Johnson (Georgetown University Law Center) has posted White Supremacy from the Bench (Lewis & Clark Law Review, Vol. 27, No. 39, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

 

Judges make important decisions in millions of cases a year across the country. Unlike other institutional players and unlike parties and their attorneys, judges are the only player in our adversarial legal system that are by design ostensibly neutral, impartial, and without bias.

Unfortunately, that legal fiction is not fact. Some judges hold racial biases. A judge in Texas used racial slurs to describe Mexicans in his state in 2020. A white judge in Louisiana in 2020 referred to a court deputy by the N-word, a white Colorado judge also used n-word in a conversation with court staff in 2020. A federal judge in Texas stated publicly that Black and Latinos are more violent than whites. A Jacksonville, FL judge said that Black people should go “back to Africa”. An Ohio judge referred to SARS-COVID-2 as the “China Virus”. In this article, I have documented scores of instances of racial bias by judges since the year 2000.

Continue reading