Notable Recent Publications, December 2025
Articles
Caliman, C. R., & Berryessa, C. M. (2025). Legal Defense of Autistic Defendants in the United States: A Qualitative Analysis of the Experiences of Legal Professionals. Journal of Social Issues, 81(4), e70034.
https://spssi.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/josi.70034
Autistic individuals encounter distinct barriers within the criminal‐legal system, such as misinterpretations of their behaviors, a lack of accommodations, and systemic biases. Despite growing understanding of these challenges, research on how defense attorneys understand and advocate for autistic clients remains limited. This study explores how defense attorneys in the United States conceptualize autism and apply neurodiversity‐informed strategies in their advocacy. Semi‐structured interviews with 31 defense attorneys revealed that while most attorneys view autism through a medicalized lens, they acknowledge the need for better strategies to secure accommodations in court. Findings suggest that attorneys often rely on expert testimony and recognize the courtroom as primarily designed for neurotypical individuals. Gaps in training and understanding about neurodiversity may hinder effective defense strategies and limit access to justice for autistic defendants. This research highlights the urgent need for enhanced legal training and systemic reform to improve representation and legal experiences for autistic individuals.
Davidsson, R. (2025). Developmental Justice: A Phenomenological Study Exploring the Experiences and Perceptions of Emerging Adults in Specialty Courts. Journal of Forensic Social Work, 9(2), 78-93.
https://journals.shareok.org/jofsw/ojs/jofsw/article/download/161/124
Emerging adulthood is a critical stage of lifespan development. Young people with behavioral health challenges are exposed to increased levels of criminal legal system interaction and often experience higher recidivism. Prior research showed that programming designed to meet the unique developmental factors of emerging adults could mitigate antisocial behaviors and effectively lower recidivism rates with evidence-based interventions. However, most published scholarship on specialty courts focuses on juveniles or adults, seen as two distinct categories and viewed through remarkedly different theories across legal settings. Given the paucity of information regarding emerging adults in the criminal legal system, exploring the experiences and perceptions of emerging adults in specialty courts was necessary. This exploratory, qualitative study, designed to center and platform youth voices, conducted in-depth interviews to highlight institutional barriers, personal challenges, and perseverance of young people in specialty courts who faced significant legal charges. Semi-structured interviews were designed around three prevalent justice frameworks: social control theory, procedural justice theory, and life-course theory. An iterative data analysis, conducted through multiple rounds of qualitative coding, revealed patterns in which these theories complemented and contradicted one another, suggesting that no single theory should serve as a mechanism for emerging adult specialty court participants. Findings also illustrated that further assessment of the impacts of specialty court approaches on this age group could help program administrators identify the distinct needs of this age group and strengthen policies and procedures to shape more favorable participant outcomes.
Eagly, I. V., Shafer, S., & Moulton, R. (2025). Access to Counsel in Immigration Court, Revisited. Iowa Law Review, Vol 111(1).
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm?abstractid=5744804
In this Article, we analyze almost 8 million deportation cases to provide a comprehensive understanding of the state of access to counsel for immigrants in removal proceedings. Our findings, which revisit and extend our 2015 national study on representation in U.S. immigration court, reveal considerable strides toward improved access to counsel over the past decade. While only 37% of immigrants in completed removal cases found counsel in our initial study (from 2007 to 2012), just over half found counsel (52%) in the subsequent years (from 2013 to 2024), including 62% of unaccompanied children. Making use of a never-before-analyzed administrative database, we document that the number of legal representatives practicing in immigration courts has nearly doubled since 2006, fueled by a more active deportation defense bar, increased pro bono interest in immigration representation, and nonprofit funding from private philanthropy and government. There are now higher representation rates in small cities and in detained immigration courts, and almost two-thirds (64%) of immigrants who found counsel succeeded in avoiding deportation, such as with a grant of asylum or termination of their case.
Meixner Jr, J. B. (2025). Equality in Sentencing Mitigation. Fordham Law Review, 94(3), 891.
https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6195&context=flr
[Shortened] As guilty-plea rates have skyrocketed, sentencing has become an increasingly important part of criminal procedure. With judges often wielding significant discretion at sentencing, a key question is how judges interpret mitigation…Past empirical research—both experimental and in real-world cases—indicates that mitigation plays an important role in determining sentences…In this Article, I present new data that shed light on these questions for the first time. I do this by leveraging two unique datasets. First, by systematically examining over 350 federal sentencing memoranda and coding them for the length of arguments devoted to various categories of mitigation (such as arguments about defendants’ good character, traumatic upbringing, or history of mental or physical illness), I demonstrate that sentencing mitigation is a central predictor of sentencing outcomes. Second, by combining my hand-coded mitigation data with previously unexplored data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, I assess the extent to which demographic characteristics—such as race, politics, and legal representation—interact with sentencing mitigation.
Oren, O., & Topaz, C. M. (2025). Judicial Professional Background and Pretrial Detention Outcomes. Journal of Law and Courts, 1-24.
https://osf.io/download/gsem7/
We analyze nearly 70,000 New York City criminal court arraignments to examine how judges’ professional backgrounds influence pretrial detention. We classify judges as having experience in law enforcement, legal services, both, or neither. Judges with law enforcement backgrounds are, on average, 3.9 percentage points more likely than others to order detention and impose cash bail. When bail is imposed, they set amounts about 32% higher. No significant differences emerge for legal services backgrounds. Because law enforcement experience is common among judges, our findings have broad implications for pretrial detention nationwide.
Rochow, D., Quintana-Navarrete, M., & Fondevila, G. (2025). Criminal Case Processing and Cumulative Disadvantage in Chile. Crime & Delinquency, 00111287251384666.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/00111287251384666
This article examines how flagrante delicto and pretrial detention shape criminal case outcomes individually and cumulatively in Santiago, Chile. We find that flagrante delicto is associated with increases in the likelihood of pretrial detention and reductions in the likelihood of non-punitive outcomes, while both factors channel cases toward guilty pleas. Yet, flagrante delicto is also associated with increases in the likelihood of guilty pleas independent of pretrial detention, and both factors’ punitive effects are inconsistent at trial. We argue that flagrante delicto operates as a powerful tool in pretrial crime processing, reinforcing penal severity within the dynamics of a highly formalized criminal justice system. This partially challenges theoretical expectations about Latin American case processing and extends research on cumulative disadvantage beyond the United States. We also identify enhanced judicial review standards at pretrial stages and expanded public defender resources as policy interventions with potential to interrupt defendants’ disadvantageous trajectories.
Reports, Briefs, and Other Resources
Khan, F. B. I., & Brown, K. L. Examining Disparities in Capital Punishment: An Evaluation of Sentencing Outcomes and Policy Responses in the United States.
This paper critically examines disparities in capital punishment sentencing in the United States, focusing on race, socioeconomic status, and geography as key determinants. Drawing from secondary data sources such as academic publications, government reports, case law, and datasets from organizations like the Death Penalty Information Center, the study highlights systemic inequities in the application of the death penalty. It identifies how racial bias disproportionately targets Black defendants, particularly in cases involving White victims, and how socioeconomic inequalities leave indigent defendants vulnerable to inadequate legal representation and harsher outcomes. Furthermore, the research underscores gender and geographic disparities, with Southern states such as Texas dominating execution statistics due to localized prosecutorial practices and cultural attitudes. Using Focal Concerns Theory as a theoretical lens, this paper explores the interplay of implicit biases, judicial discretion, and systemic constraints shaping sentencing outcomes. The findings call for reforms, including mandatory bias training, increased funding for public defenders, and standardized sentencing guidelines, to ensure equity and justice. This review aims to contribute to the broader discourse on fairness in the criminal justice system and provide actionable insights for policy development.
Nguyen, V., Fraser, C., & Mitchell-Laguna, J., (2025). A Guide for Building Data Capacity in Rural Defense Systems. Center for Justice Innovation.
https://www.innovatingjustice.org/resources/guide-building-data-capacity-rural-defense-systems/
Robust data capacity supports rural defense systems in improving indigent defense delivery, advocating for the appropriate resources, fostering collaboration with stakeholders, and responding more effectively to legal and policy changes. Yet, rural defense systems face unique challenges, including limited funding, the common use of a decentralized contract-based systems, a lack of technical staff, and resistance to data sharing. Drawing on experience providing expert assistance projects in three rural jurisdictions seeking to expand their data capacity and interviews with eight organizations that have successfully built data systems, this guide offers recommendations for building sustainable data systems that considers the unique challenges facing rural jurisdictions.
Vavonese, L. & Watkins, M. (2025). Counsel at First Appearance: An Object Lesson in Policy Implementation. Center for Justice Innovation.
https://www.innovatingjustice.org/resources/counsel-at-first-appearance/
Your first appearance before a judge is often when decisions are made about bail and detention that can profoundly impact the outcome of your case. Yet in much of the country, there is no requirement you be represented by a lawyer. The evidence for ensuring counsel at first appearance is clear: it strengthens both public safety and the fairness of the system. This policy brief approaches the ongoing efforts to secure early counsel as a challenge of implementation. That is, even with positive research findings and ample political will, why do some attempts to change practices fail to fully materialize? The brief offers practical advice on ensuring the push for counsel at first appearance is transformed into change on the ground.
If you have suggestions, ideas for work that should be included, or trouble accessing any of the articles featured, please email Venita Embry at vembry.embry@gmail.com.
