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.