Everyone deserves a fair trial. It’s a bedrock promise of the legal system—but one that’s often broken. Defendants raise constitutional violations all the time: unfair juries, withheld evidence, incompetent lawyers. But raising the issue isn’t enough. To prevail, one must prove whether those errors mattered—that there’s a reasonable probability the outcome would have been different if the trial had been fair.
That’s a high bar. And courts are often skeptical. Judges ask: Would a better lawyer have changed the verdict? Would a more diverse jury have reached a different conclusion? Would proper instructions have made a real difference? These aren’t abstract questions—they demand answers. And right now, too often, the answers are little more than guesses.
At Fair Trial Analysis, we believe that justice requires measurement. Our mission is to develop rigorous, research-based tools to evaluate trial fairness and estimate how errors may have shaped the outcome. We use social science methods—surveys, simulations, statistical analysis—to provide courts with credible evidence that trial flaws weren’t harmless.
We don’t take sides. We don’t claim to know who’s guilty or innocent. But we know this: if you can’t measure fairness, you can’t enforce it. And if you can’t enforce it, the right to a fair trial is just a slogan.
We want to change that.
Follow along to see how we’re building a new way to defend fair trials—by treating fairness not just as a principle, but as a measurable standard. If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.