Publications

Shari R. Berkowitz, Brandon L. Garrett, Kimberly M. Fenn & Elizabeth F. Loftus in Memory 30:1

The authors review what we actually know and do not know about the “initial confidence” of eyewitnesses in the DNA exoneration cases and new research that reveals numerous conditions wherein eyewitnesses with high initial confidence end up being wrong.

By: William Crozier, Jeff Kukucka and Brandon L. Garrett – Forensic Science International (2020)

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 six months of work evaluating the implementation of the misdemeanor bail reforms in Harris County, Texas. (2020)

This study examined the effects of jail diversion participation on treatment utilization, arrest, and incarceration, separately for men and women.

By: Allison G. Robertson, Michele M. Easter, Hsiu-Ju Lin, Dalia Khoury, Joshua Pierce, Jeffrey W. Swanson, and Marvin S. Swartz – Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment (2020)

This study examined the effect of eyewitnesses’ expressed confidence on prospective jurors.

By: Brandon L. Garrett, Alice Liu, Karen Kafadar, Joanne Yaffe, and Chad S. Dodson – Journal of Empirical Legal Studies (2020)

This amicus brief, filed on behalf of scholars of criminal, constitutional law, poverty law and access to justice, describes the importance of conducting a robust due process and equal protection analysis when examining the imposition of sanctions on persons without regard to their ability to pay.

In over 1.72 million cases total – and 120,000 cases each year criminal courts in North Carolina have imposed fees that a person cannot or does not pay. A failure to comply with the court order to pay, or an “FTC,” is then entered in the case. This report sheds light on the scope of the FTC phenomenon in North Carolina. (2020)

By: Michele M. Easter, Jeffrey W. Swanson, Allison G. Robertson, Lorna L. Moser, and Marvin S. Swartz – Journal of Mental Health (2020)

“Equal process” claims arise from a line of Supreme Court and lower court cases in which wealth inequality is the central concern. That equal process connection is at the forefront of a wave of national litigation concerning some of the most pressing civil rights issues of our time, including: the constitutionality of fines, fees, and costs; detention of immigrants and criminal defendants for inability to pay cash bail; loss of voting rights; and a host of other ways in which the indigent face both unfair process and disparate burdens. This article argues that an intersectional “equal process” approach to these cases better reflects both longstanding constitutional doctrine and the practical stakes in such litigation. If courts properly understand this connection between inequality and unfair process, they will design more suitable and effective remedies. By: Brandon L. Garrett – William & Mary Law Review (2019-2020)

This article assesses the adoption of police eyewitness identification policies in Virginia. Policymakers were focused on this problem, in part, due to a series of DNA exonerations in cases involving misidentifications. To remedy this problem, in 2011, the state law enforcement policy agency drafted a detailed model policy on eyewitness procedure. An earlier 2013 study found those practices were only haltingly being adopted. This 2018 study, however, found near universal adoption of these best practices. By: Brandon Garrett — Virginia Law Review (2019)