Proof Over Precedent

Jury selection should aim for a balanced and thoughtful panel; in capital cases, that balance is further underscored. This week's "Student Voices" post argues that "death-qualifying juries"--the practice of excluding jurors who oppose the death penalty--disrupts that balance. Those constitutional guarantees of impartiality, equality, and reliability? Not so ensured with practice. Reform options, however, are not so simple.

Serving as a juror fulfills one's civic duty to ensure a system of checks and balances in the U.S. In capital cases, however, "death qualification" ensures that prospective jurors opposed to the death penalty will not have the opportunity to perform this civic duty. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode features a "Student Voices" interview with Megan Byrne of the ACLU's Capital Punishment Project to discuss the shortcomings of less diverse juries due to race, gender, and religious differences. It also looks at a capital case in Kansas in which the courts examined the problems associated with death qualification and the death penalty overall.

Just because an individual may own property, does not guarantee that the person may keep that property—that’s the warning stemming from this week's podcast episode featuring an interview with Dr. Kara Woods, research analyst at Alcorn State University’s National Policy Research Center. Issues may arise from heirs property—co-owned land in which the name of the original, and now deceased, owner is still on the deed. Land loss due to heirs property issues affects groups disproportionately by race and class, and the policy protections against it are inconsistent across states. The ensuing legal hurdles mark a barrier that some families cannot overcome. One takeaway: Communicate with your family members!

"Martinizing", the controversial Supreme Court practice of denying court fee waivers for indigent litigants, is meant to reduce frivolous filings, but at what cost? This episode looks at the January 2026 Howell order in which Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson was the sole dissenting voice against Martinizing indigent prisoners. Her argument reignites the perspective that access to justice and the potential for future meritorious claims should outweigh workload relief.

More than 100 million pending cases await Brazil courts, so it may not be surprising that the country's Supreme Court Justice has a reportedly rosy view of AI in the court system, especially in time-sensitive civil and criminal matters. The potential for AI to help alleviate the backlog and potentially bring more balance and less bias may brush over the possible system errors and human rubber-stamping that come with it. This "Student Voices" podcast discusses Brazil's use of AI in the court system and the areas ripe for more scrutiny--evaluations through RCTs and metric-based learning models.

The Texas Two-Step is a fairly simple dance, but in the world of corporate bankruptcy, it's the name of a sophisticated maneuver that some profitable companies employ to stop mass tort liabilities and limit the settlements due to victims. It splits a company and strategically divides its assets and liabilities. In this manner, the companies win and the tort victims, by comparison, lose. But there may be reason for cautious optimism. Proof Over Precedent interviews bankruptcy scholar and law professor Melissa Jacoby about the practice, the reasons courts allow it, and the avenues under consideration for making bankruptcy a more just and exceptional option for corporations.

Trump v. CASA did not directly address immigration and birthright citizenship when it ruled against universal injunctions, and yet...The aftermath of the ruling left the immigration law landscape in a tailspin. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode interviews Katie Taylor, Legal Director of the Neighbors Immigration Clinic (Lexington, KY), where the practice has shifted its role now that the state houses eight immigration detention centers. She provides a frontline view of the scramble that immigrants and the clinics supporting them face without nationwide relief.

Pro se litigants have reason to hope for a better civil courtroom experience with active judging. If done right, this reform promises more clarity and mercy for those unfamiliar with legal procedures, and better fact-finding and balanced evidence for judges overseeing the cases. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode discusses the potential for reform, what's holding judges back from fully adopting it, and the procedural and legislative changes necessary to support both judges and pro se litigants in fairer, more efficient civil hearings.

Is it time for an inquisitorial legal system? How about a redesigned "lawyer-less" court? This isn't the wild west of the legal world, but rather a lively discussion among three access to justice advocates on the merits–or rather shortcomings–of a push for a civil right to counsel and possible alternatives to closing the access to justice gap. Join Law Professor Benjamin Barton (University of Tennessee), The Honorable Stephanos Bibas of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and our own A2J Lab director and Harvard Law School Professor Jim Greiner in this week's Proof Over Precedent episode.

When it comes to immigration, the legal aid sector has pivoted its resources from affirmative relief for immigrants to defense deportation and detention center intakes. In this "Student Voices" podcast, the discussion between fellow Harvard Law School J.D. candidates Andrew Garcia and Emily Irigoyen, the latter of whom co-leads the Harvard Immigration Project, ranges from the fallout of this shift in immigration legal aid resources to the shortcomings of typical immigration proceedings and the need for family preparedness planning.

Labor movements have had to get creative when it comes to labor justice for immigrant workers. That's where worker centers fill the niche not covered by traditional labor unions. In this Proof Over Precedent episode, HLS Professor Sharon Block, executive director of the Center for Labor and a Just Economy, discusses the difference between the two labor organizations, the future of the two, and the vital role collective action plays in advocating for justice.

In this "Student Voices" episode, HLS student Grace Gao interviews Ari Scourtas, Product and Research Manager of the Library Innovation Lab at Harvard Law School, about making AI legal tools accessible for people facing digital barriers. The discussion covers legal AI's risks and opportunities for self representation and the expanding role libraries play in bridging the knowledge gap around AI.

This bonus episode of Proof Over Precedent looks at the access to justice issues around the Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights (LEOBR) statutes and contract provisions that grant police officers enhanced procedural protections during internal misconduct investigations. At odds are the tensions between public accountability and officers’ claims of needing protection from false accusations. HLS student Strong Ma proposes a randomized controlled trial to study the effects on investigation outcomes, civil litigation, and perceived fairness.

Workplace justice issues take center stage in this Proof Over Precedent "student voices" episode focused on Reclamo AI, an AI chatbot, developed to help workers--especially immigrant communities -- address wage theft and find local advocates. Joshua Medina, legal director for Pro Bono Net's JusticiaLab, shares insight on the transformation of the tool, including its efforts to protect user privacy and to avoid unauthorized practice of law.

"My criminal record doesn't reflect who I am anymore." This sentiment overwhelmingly topped the list of reasons why expungement study participants wanted to clear their record that it seemed plausible to predict that clearing one's criminal record would lead to higher levels of life satisfaction. Likewise, it did not seem far-fetched to assume individuals without a criminal record would fare better in obtaining housing than those with one. In both cases though, the A2J Lab and Kansas Legal Services found surprising results to refute these assumptions.

The A2J Lab's randomized control trial on expungement examined the uptake and obstacles of criminal record clearing while also looking into its effect on various socio-economic outcomes. This week's Proof Over Precedent episode gathers study researchers to discuss the "surprising and depressing" findings on expungement's effect on employment. They also dive into explanations for the stark difference between individuals' optimism and reality in the experiment.

Is the form-filling expungement process as easy for unrepresented individuals as some believe? In this week's Proof Over Precedent episode, host Jim Greiner welcomes the A2J Lab team involved in our long-running Kansas-based study looking at the current record-clearing process and its obstacles. The results offer clear evidence for what it takes for a successful expungement.

Facing an eviction, a tenant has to decide if the added expense of an attorney is worth it for the possibility of avoiding an eviction judgment. In a discussion of a randomized controlled trial outside the A2J Lab, Faculty Director Jim Greiner talks with economists Aviv Caspi and Charlie Rafkin about when, why, and whether lawyers make a difference in evictions cases. The study coincided with a government emergency housing fund that expired during the RCT, which helped answer how lawyers can best make a difference as well.

State bar associations typically file more UPL complaints than consumers. Given the intended aim of protecting consumers, UPL may actually be serving more as an obstacle and less as a protection for consumers using generative AI in the legal space. That's the argument Wake Forest Law Professor and UPL expert Ellen Murphy makes in the latest Proof Over Precedent episode, where she identifies the legal industry's progress with AI regulation by state and how AI and human counseling may combine to be the strongest access-to-justice resource.

The low cost and accessibility of AI make it a potential game changer for pro se litigation and the future of affordable legal aid. But with the patchwork of state unauthorized practice of law (UPL) rules and no court resolution on AI's UPL liability, it also faces an uncertain future as a legal tool. HLS students tackle the issue in the latest Proof Over Precedent and distinguish between legal information and legal advice—a key to general-purpose AI's future in law.