Publications

This article describes insights from qualitative interviews with jail medical staff in four states, to explore what challenges face delivery of healthcare, but more specifically, when health-based needs require counsel releasing individuals from jail. It describes widespread informal and unwritten mechanisms for health-based releases from jails and how such practices have implications for reforming the legal rules surrounding jail healthcare. By: Brandon L. Garrett, Deniz Ariturk, Jessica Carda-Auten, and David L. Rosen — William and Mary Bill of Rights Journal (2022)

This study investigated the role of information loss, contextual information, and distinctive features of fingerprints on novice’s ability to judge whether two fingerprints came from the same source. By: Jessica Marcon Zabecki, Adele Quigley-McBride, and Christian A. Meissner — Applied Cognitive Psychology (2022)

This amicus brief challenged DNA analysis that grossly deviated from the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Crime Lab’s standard operating procedures (SOPs) in several ways, including using 10 times less DNA than the minimum indicated in the lab’s SOPs as the threshold for reliable analysis.

This amicus brief challenged Orange County’s (CA) District Attorney’s (OCDA) DNA database collection program, in which defendants’ charges are routinely dismissed or negotiated in exchange for their DNA – colloquially known as their “spit and acquit” program. Yvette Garcia Missri, Brandon Garrett, and Berkeley Law’s Andrea Roth argue OCDA’s program is a black box with no transparency, low public safety benefits, and wrought with public policy and ethical concerns – particularly unfettered prosecutorial power.

The Wilson Center began a collaboration with the Berkshire County District Attorney’s Office in 2020 to study the plea-bargaining process and plea outcomes in Berkshire, Massachusetts.  This report reflects one year of data collection, from April 1, 2021, through April 30, 2022. (2022)

This amicus brief challenged unreliable firearm tool mark comparison expert testimony. We partnered with the Innocence Project in arguing that traditional forensic firearms and toolmark comparisons raise reliability concerns regarding methods and applications of the methods, showing that the scientific community has carefully detailed the lack of reliability of firearms and toolmark comparisons. We also argued that while error rates in forensic firearms identification studies are flawed and misleading, they are nonetheless important and still matter. We filed a similar brief in US v. Walker.

This article argues federal gun crimes reflect a unique dynamic in which legislation is shaped by three forces: (1) aggressive interest group lobbying that leads to compromise on harsh punishment; (2) a dichotomizing of gun users into either “law-abiding citizens” or “thugs” and “gangsters”; and (3) prosecutorial power that is magnified in this area. By: Jacob D. Charles and Brandon Garrett — University of Pennsylvania Law Review (2022)

This Article seeks to shed light on key distinctions in bail reform approaches by focusing on six models: (1) the Procedural Due Process Model; (2) the Risk Assessment Model; (3) the Categorical Model; (4) the Community Services Model; (5) the Equal Protection Model; and (6) the Alternatives to Arrest Model. By: Brandon Garrett — Florida Law Review (2022)

This article delves into a central problem in forensics: that the function has been treated as a law enforcement rather than scientific function and as a result has undermined both public safety and fairness. By: Brandon Garrett — American Journal of Law and Equality (2022)

This article examines the problem of criminal debt and addresses law and policy reforms and the constitutional question of whether such debt can be imposed on persons who lack ability to pay, and what Equal Protection, Due Process, Excessive Fines Clause, and other requirements must be satisfied to constitutionally impose criminal debts. By: Brandon Garrett — Federal Sentencing Reporter (2022)