if you want justice, measure it.
Like many organizations, Fair Trial Analysis aims to make our criminal justice system more equitable and efficient. To this end, we offer a rigorous method of measuring the fairness of criminal trials. Objective analysis of the effects of trial errors and omissions is essential to upholding the right to fair trials and the rule of law.
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules. They apply them. The role of an umpire and a judge is critical. They make sure everybody plays by the rules. But it is a limited role. Nobody ever went to a ballgame to see the umpire.”
Chief Justice John Roberts, U.S. Supreme Court
Through careful research, we can measure the fairness of trials, making it possible to distinguish fair and unfair trials in a similar manner as an umpire calling balls and strikes.
Objective
Unbiased analysis based on published scientific research methods.
Fast
Most projects can be completed within one week.
Transparent
Research instruments, data, and analysis can be made available for review.
Research Community – Scientific Analysis of Trial Errors v.3.1.0 Available for R via CRAN
Taking Action – What is an Amicus Curiae Brief?
Forthcoming Article – Measuring Fairness, Alabama Law Review (forthcoming Fall 2025).
Published Research – If the Jury Only Knew: The Effect of Omitted Mitigation Evidence on the Probability of a Death Sentence, 32 Virginia Journal of Social Policy & the Law 1 (Spring 2025).
Published Research – A Scientific Framework for Analyzing the Harmfulness of Trial Errors, 8 UCLA Criminal Justice Law Review 1 (2024).
Forthcoming Article
Evaluating Death Sentencing Procedures: Fairness, Disparities, and Constitutional Limits, University of Boston Public Interest Law Review (forthcoming Spring 2026). Offers objective quantitative analysis of effects of varying sentencing procedures, such as delegating selection decision to judges, non-unanimous verdict rules, procedures following jury impasse, and judicial override.
Forthcoming Article
Discussion Outdated and Unconstitutional: Rethinking Duration of Residency Requirements for Jury Service, Creighton Law Review (forthcoming Winter 2025). Contends that duration of residency requirement for jury service violates constitutional right to impartial jury selected from representative cross-section of community. Legislative history offers no basis for the exclusion, and it undermines, rather than advances, state interests.
Working Paper
Markov Chain Models of Small Group Deliberation. This manuscript details technical aspects of Markov chain models of jury deliberation. Models of binary choice are validated using benchmark data. Models of deliberation over ordered choices are developed, tested, and applied to classic works on jurors’ preferred verdicts under constrained options.