Resources

Identifying ways to shift public attitudes toward support for alternative approaches to criminalized behavior is necessary to address mass incarceration. This study examines whether education on the impacts of traumatic events may be one strategy to increase such support and whether effects can be amplified through incorporation of growth mindset messaging. By: Eva McKinsey, Sarah L. Desmarais, Jeni L. Burnette, and Brandon L. Garrett — Journal of Experimental Criminology (2022)

Wilson Center Faculty Director Brandon Garrett serves as independent monitor for the landmark federal bail reform settlement in Harris County, TX. This first report by the monitor team describes the first two years of work evaluating the implementation of the misdemeanor bail reforms in Harris County, Texas. (2022)

Contextual information can influence how forensic analysts perceive, interpret, and evaluate evidence. Proper information sequencing can reduce bias and improve the repeatability and reproducibility of forensic decisions. Linear Sequential Unmasking–Expanded (LSU-E) prioritizes objective, relevant, and non-suggestive information. To close the gap between research and practice, we developed a worksheet to help laboratories and analysts implement LSU-E. This worksheet aims to optimize information sequencing and promote transparency in forensic decisions. By: Adele Quigley-McBride, Itiel E. Dror, Tiffany Roy, Brandon L. Garrett, and Jeff Kukucka — Forensic Science International: Synergy (2022)

This article examines the factors leading to the the failure of the U.S. mental health care system in caring for Black and Brown people with serious mental illnesses, including the Inmate Exclusion Policy and the failure of providers to accept Medicare. By: Stephanie A. Rolin, M.D., M.P.H., Danielle S. Jackson, M.D., M.P.H., and Marvin S. Swartz, M.D. — Psychiatric Services (2021)

North Carolina is our Exhibit A in what can go wrong when an entire state relies on fines and fees from low-level cases to generate revenue. A team of researchers from the Wilson Center for Science and Justice at Duke Law released this report describing three studies examining fines, fees, and driver’s license suspensions in North Carolina. (2021)

This amicus brief was filed on behalf of several scholars and organizations, including Brandon Garrett and Yvette Garcia Missri at the Wilson Center and Gabe Berumen, J.D. Candidate, Class of 2023, Duke University School of Law, and the Idaho Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. It argues that the Board of Immigration Appeals erred in concluding that an individual drug substance is an element of the state’s criminal code.

This article published in Justice Evaluation examines the impact of driver’s license suspensions. The authors surveyed people in North Carolina (N = 853) and found that 18% of respondents had a suspended license, with race and low income predicting higher suspension rates, and increased difficulty for daily activities and ability to pay for housing. The authors also offer policy recommendations including abolishing suspension, other incremental options, and restoration efforts. By William E. Crozier, Brandon L. Garrett, and Karima Modjadidi.

Wilson Center Faculty Director Brandon Garrett serves as independent monitor for the landmark federal bail reform settlement in Harris County, TX. This third report by the monitor team describes the first eighteen months of work evaluating the implementation of the misdemeanor bail reforms in Harris County, Texas. (2021)

This report reviews advances in research and in our criminal legal system since the release of the 2014 National Academy of Science report. The findings are based on a systematic scoping review of empirical research in eyewitness identification, a workshop with researchers and legal professionals (November 2020), and surveys of leading respondents. By Karen Kafadar, Chad Dodson, Brandon Garrett, and Joanne Yaffe.

By Gregory Mitchell and Brandon L. Garrett in Applied Cognitive Psychology

This study examined whether a defense rebuttal expert can effectively educate jurors on the risk that the prosecution’s fingerprint expert made an error. Using a sample of 1716 jury-eligible adults, the authors examined the impact of three types of rebuttal testimony in a mock trial: (a) a methodological rebuttal explaining the general risk of error in the fingerprint-comparison process; (b) a new-evidence rebuttal concluding the latent fingerprint recovered in this case was not suitable for use in a comparison; and (c) a new-evidence rebuttal excluding the defendant as the source of the latent fingerprint. All three rebuttals significantly altered perceptions of the prosecution’s fingerprint evidence, but new-evidence rebuttals proved most effective. The effectiveness of the rebuttals depended, however, on whether jurors were more concerned about false acquittals or false convictions.