Notable Recent Publications, July 2026
Articles
Garrett, B. et al., Win-Win Misdemeanor Bail Policy: Lessons from Data on Harris County Reforms, 63 Hou. L. Rev. 1015 (2026).
[shortened] This Symposium Article reports on ten years of data studying the effects of the court supervised changes to the misdemeanor bail process in Harris County, Texas, from 2015 to 2025. The first major change occurred in May of 2017 with the court’s preliminary injunction. Ultimately, the case resulted in a consent decree in 2019, under which Harris County implemented the largest scale and farthest reaching constitutional remedies in a misdemeanor bail system. As monitors, we have previously detailed the accomplishments under that Consent Decree in a series of articles and reports. In this Symposium Article, we describe our updated work, many years in the making. Specifically, we set forth data supporting the global effects of the Odonnell reforms: benefits to public safety, improvements to due process rights, and cost savings to the county that have resulted from the implementation of reforms in Harris County. In prior work, we reported initial findings concerning the costs and benefits of these changes. In this Article, however, we present far more complete analyses of data on the misdemeanor system in Harris County spanning ten years.
Huebner, B. M., & Tapp, K. (2026). Prosecutorial power in probation: Discretion, violations, and the pathway to incarceration. Criminology & Public Policy, 25, 379—402.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.70025
Prosecutorial discretion plays a central role in shaping criminal case outcomes, yet its influence in the context of probation, particularly during violation proceedings, remains underexplored. This paper explores how prosecutorial discretion functions within the courtroom workgroup to shape probation, from plea bargaining to responses to violations, in the context of mass supervision today. Using qualitative data from 23 in-depth interviews with prosecutors, judges, and defense attorneys in a midsize U.S. jurisdiction, we analyze how institutional norms, organizational pressures, and competing logics of punishment, rehabilitation, and efficiency shape decision making. Prosecutors influence who is offered probation, what conditions are imposed, and how compliance is interpreted, often anchoring decision making through informal case “valuation” practices that reflect victim-centered, fiscal, and efficiency-oriented logics. Within the workgroup, their recommendations carry significant weight, shaping outcomes even as they are formally subject to judicial approval and adversarial negotiation.
Knes, A., Henry, T. K., Lowder, E. M., Diaz, C., & Grommon, E. (2026). Whose Job is It Anyway? Criminal-Legal Professionals’ and Community Members’ Perceptions of System Disparities. Race and Justice, 21533687261460870.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/21533687261460870
Introduction: Racial disparities are documented throughout criminal-legal processing and are often attributed to discretionary legal decision making. Although prior research has shown how racial disparities can be introduced, maintained, or amplified with each decision, less is known about how criminal-legal professionals interpret disparities. Aim: This study examined how criminal-legal system stakeholders perceive the causes of racial disparities in their community. Methods: We administered a cross-sectional survey to 223 residents in a single Midwestern jurisdiction, including law enforcement agents (21.1%), prosecutors (13.9%), public defenders (4.5%), judges (2.2%), community corrections officers (12.6%), and system-impacted residents (45.7%). Participants rated the extent to which various factors contribute to racial disparities and which different professionals contribute to or could address them. Results: Most participants attributed racial disparities to both structural and interpersonal factors—particularly socioeconomic status, different opportunities, and unconscious bias and stereotypes. Judges, police, and prosecutors were seen as the most responsible for and capable of addressing disparities. Law enforcement agents, however, uniquely emphasized individual-level factors like criminal behavior, suggesting a more interpersonal framing of disparities. Conclusion: As perspectives of disparity varied across roles, our findings necessitate deeper analysis to understand how each stakeholder’s decisions contribute to cumulative inequality and foster cross-role collaboration.
Reports, Brief, or Other Resources
Caliman, C. R. (2026). Bridging the gap: navigating autism spectrum disorder and the criminal justice system (Doctoral dissertation, Rutgers The State University of New Jersey, Graduate School-Newark).
[shortened] This dissertation, comprised of three studies, adds to the growing body of literature at the intersection of law and psychology by exploring how Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is understood, communicated, and adjudicated across different stages of the US criminal-legal system, specifically courts. Overall, this dissertation expands existing literature to examine understudied questions about how neurodivergence intersects with the criminal-legal system, while providing empirical insight that should assist in developing more equitable legal practices, training standards, and policies for individuals with ASD involved in criminal proceedings.
Cheong, I., Liu, P., Stammbach, D., & Henderson, P. (2025). How can AI augment access to justice? Public defenders’ perspectives on AI adoption. arXiv preprint arXiv:2510.22933.
https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/3805689.3806526
Public defenders are asked to do more with less: representing clients deserving of adequate counsel while facing overwhelming caseloads and scarce resources. Although artificial intelligence (AI) is often promoted as a means of relieving administrative and cognitive burdens, legal AI research rarely engages with the everyday realities of public defense work. Drawing on in-depth, semi-structured interviews with 17 public defense professionals across the United States, we identify work-intensive tasks most amenable to AI assistance and the ethical constraints involved in legal representation. We develop a comprehensive task-level map of public defense work, dividing it into five pillars to clarify where AI can and cannot contribute: evidence investigation, legal research & writing, client communication & support, courtroom representation, and defense strategies. Interviewees consistently identified evidence investigation, such as reviewing large volumes of digital records, as the area with the greatest potential for AI support. AI was viewed as having more limited roles in legal research and client communication, and as least compatible with courtroom representation and defense strategy. We find that AI adoption is constrained by costs, restrictive office norms, confidentiality risks, and unsatisfactory tool quality. Our interviewees emphasize safeguards for responsible use, including mandatory human verification, limits on over-reliance, and the preservation of relational aspects of lawyering. Building on these findings, we outline a research agenda that promotes equitable access to justice by prioritizing open science, building domain-specific datasets and evaluation, and incorporating frontline practitioners’ perspectives into system development.
Troxel, T. S. (2026). From classroom to courtroom: Understanding real pathways into legal careers (Senior Thesis, University of Nebraska at Omaha).
This study examines how legal professionals describe their preparation for legal and law adjacent careers, with the goal of identifying practical guidance for college students entering the field. Existing literature on legal career preparation often emphasizes measurable qualifications, while offering broad or generalized advice. At the same time, research on career development highlights the importance of experiential learning and mentorship, suggesting a gap between formal guidance and lived experience. To explore this gap, this study conducted interviews with ten legal professionals across a range of roles and experience levels. Participants were asked about their backgrounds, career paths, skill development, and other factors in their career preparation. Interview responses were coded and analyzed using a thematic approach, with findings compared to common career preparation literature. Results indicate that while participants valued key skills emphasized in existing guidance, they placed greater importance on experiential learning. Internships, mentorship, and on-the-job learning were consistently identified as the most influential factors in career preparation. Participants also described gaps between formal education and practical work, as well as varied career paths into the legal field. Expanding access to experiential learning opportunities may better support students in developing the skills, clarity, and confidence needed to pursue legal careers.
If you have suggestions, ideas for work that should be included, or trouble accessing any of the articles featured, please email Venita Embry at venita.embry@gmail.com.
