Folgen

  • Episode 31: Life Without Parole—a Death Sentence in Disguise

    Episode 31: Life Without Parole—a Death Sentence in Disguise
    Jan 12 2026
    In this "Student Voices" episode, HLS J.D. candidate Kristen Arnold looks at the procedural shortcomings of life sentences without the possibility of parole, particularly in comparison to capital punishment cases. She dives into the injustices of the LWOP procedure, the no-hope consequences for inmates and the system, and opportunity for a randomized control trial in the field to improve fairness.
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    18 Min.
  • Episode 30: Do Judges Actually Read Search Warrants?

    Episode 30: Do Judges Actually Read Search Warrants?
    Jan 6 2026
    Despite search warrants being a topic of significant interest in court cases and legal scholarship, the process of obtaining warrants offers comparatively little information. But when researchers found a surprising public data point in this field, their analysis led to sobering findings regarding the time judges spend reviewing warrants and the high approval rates of such warrants. In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the researchers discuss their work, the data analysis process, and the implications of potentially insufficient judicial review of warrants.
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    1 Std. und 3 Min.
  • Episode 28: Pretrial Detention Efficacy and Alternatives

    Episode 28: Pretrial Detention Efficacy and Alternatives
    Dec 22 2025
    This Student Voices episode focuses on the data and studies pointing to the shortcomings of pretrial detention – the significant costs, lack of impact on reducing crime, and shortage of failure-to-appear connections. HLS JD candidate Leann Poarch instead suggests a low-cost, relatively low-tech alternative that may be more effective.
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    25 Min.
  • Episode 27: The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention

    Episode 27: The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention
    Dec 16 2025
    In this Student Voices episode, HLS J.D. candidate Leann Poarch discusses the significant costs of detaining individuals who await trial, such as legal fees, loss of employment, and long-term economic and psychological effects. Given that detaining individuals not yet convicted can cost local governments more than $13 billion, is it time to look into reforming the pretrial system?
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    26 Min.
  • Episode 26: When is Informed Consent Unnecessary?

    Episode 26: When is Informed Consent Unnecessary?
    Dec 9 2025
    Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School

    In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the fourth in a series on Ethics in the Law, host Jim Greiner talks again with IRB expert Shannon Sewards to discuss the complexities and criteria involved in obtaining waivers of informed consent within the realm of social science and legal research, comparing it to the regulations governing medical research. The two dive into an A2J Lab study on pretrial risk assessment tools to use as an example in determining the necessity of obtaining informed consent. When does protecting study participants take precedence, and when do critical research needs supersede those of participants?

    Read the corresponding blog post.

    Speakers:

    • Shannon Sewards, Director of the Human Research Protection Program, Dartmouth Health; former Director, Harvard University Area IRB
    • Jim Greiner, Honorable S. William Green Professor of Public Law at Harvard Law School; Faculty Director of the Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School

    Resources mentioned:

    • General Requirements for Informed Consent (45 C.F.R § 46.116)
    • General Waiver or Alteration of Consent (45 C.F.R § 46.116(f)
    • Office of Human Research Protection
    • Common Rule (45 C.F.R § 46(a)

    Related “Ethics in the Law” series episodes:

    • Episode 8: Ethics in Research — IRBs and the Common Rule Explained
    • Episode 10: What is Human Subjects Research in Law?
    • Episode 14: Ethical Conundrums in Legal Research

    Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu

    Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab:

    • Email newsletter
    • Facebook
    • BlueSky
    • LinkedIn
    • YouTube

    Support the A2J

    Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    1 Std. und 3 Min.
  • Episode 25: Legal Labyrinths Reveal Divorce Filing Woes

    Episode 25: Legal Labyrinths Reveal Divorce Filing Woes
    Dec 2 2025
    Why is it so hard logistically to file for divorce when legally some cases are quite simple and uncomplicated? This second divorce study episode of Proof Over Precedent dives into the data behind the hassle factors and shares the surprising results of measuring the pro se accessibility of a court system. Maybe the answer isn't more lawyers.
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    58 Min.
  • Episode 24: Till Death—or an Affordable Divorce—Do Us Part

    Episode 24: Till Death—or an Affordable Divorce—Do Us Part
    Dec 2 2025
    When it comes to obtaining a divorce, pro se litigants face significant obstacles, stemming primarily from financial challenges. Without a lawyer, many are ill equipped to undertake the complex paperwork, waiting periods, and logistical hurdles that come with filing for divorce. This first of two divorce study episodes of Proof Over Precedent introduces the randomized controlled trial the A2J Lab undertook to determine how effective pro bono matching services are in providing access to justice for low-income individuals.
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    47 Min.
  • Episode 23: Innovative Approaches to Mental Health Hearings

    Episode 23: Innovative Approaches to Mental Health Hearings
    Nov 18 2025
    Rogers hearings allow Massachusetts judges to approve treatment plans for involuntarily committed individuals, but the process is criticized for its inefficiency and 99% approval rate. What if procedural reforms could improve outcomes? Replacing district court judges with administrative law judges to oversee hearings and substituting public defenders with mental health professionals as patient advocates could improve outcomes for both the involuntarily committed individuals and the courts—reducing delays, improving patient outcomes, and better utilizing court resources. All we need is an RCT.
    Mehr anzeigen Weniger anzeigen
    30 Min.