An official website of the United States government
This essay compares the claims of trade secret privilege in criminal proceedings asserted by the creators of AI systems with the assertions of such privilege in patent infringement discovery. This comparison reveals that, in the case of patent infringement, courts have generally limited such privilege assertions. This essay argues that the case for discovery in the criminal context should be stronger, rather than weaker, in the criminal context.
more »
« less
Law Enforcement Privilege
You can’t question a secret you haven’t been told. The criminal legal system depends on fair and open proceedings to expose and regulate unlawful and unconstitutional police conduct through the courts. If police can use claims of secrecy to systematically thwart criminal defendants’ access to evidence, judicial review will fail. And yet that is exactly what is happening under a common-law doctrine called the “law enforcement privilege.” The privilege empowers police and prosecutors to rely on the results of secret investigative methods while withholding information from the defense about how those methods work. It risks perpetuating unconstitutional conduct, enabling wrongful convictions, and rendering Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, Brady, and statutory discovery laws moot. At the same time, it has a non-frivolous policy rationale. If all police investigative methods were public information, then more people committing crimes could evade detection.How can a better balance be struck? This Article argues that current law enforcement privilege doctrine creates a dangerously boundless police secrecy power because of a subtle conceptual collapse: The policy rationale itself is mistakenly used as the test for assessing claims of privilege. The Article recommends that courts instead evaluate privilege claims by reference to the marginal risk of leaking posed by in-court disclosure. Specifically, judges should demand to know what conditions law enforcement previously imposed on access to the information. The answer to that question can be adjudicated publicly without jeopardizing a legitimate privilege claim and will help judges detect mistaken, exaggerated, pretextual, or fraudulent claims to the privilege. Further, even when law enforcement has taken care with the information, if a court-ordered protective order can match or exceed the safeguards that law enforcement itself previously maintained, then judges should default to ordering disclosure. The Article concludes by suggesting a theory of the role of confidentiality in privilege law.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2243822
- PAR ID:
- 10646606
- Publisher / Repository:
- University of Michigan
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Michigan Law Review
- Issue:
- 123.8
- ISSN:
- 0026-2234
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 1391
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
This article draws on a case study of how Massachusetts treatment courts responded to the COVID-19 pandemic to address two intersecting theoretical and policy questions: (1) How do actors who work within criminal legal organizations use the law to solve complex social and political problems? (2) How do organizations working within multiple, fragmented organizational fields respond to an exogenous shock? The findings draw on interviews with eighty-four treatment court judges and practitioners and build from neo-institutional approaches to the study of courts to show that legal actors and organizations pursue pragmatic approaches, strategically adapting to their external environments through buffering, which is protective, and innovation, which is transformative. Each strategy reflects the courts’ autonomy or dependence on other organizations in the criminal legal and social service fields. The findings also provide insight into the social process of legitimation as personnel aligned beliefs with adaptation strategies, shifting understandings of surveillance practices and the utility of sanctions to meet overall court goals.more » « less
-
AI algorithms are increasingly influencing decision-making in criminal justice, including tasks such as predicting recidivism and identifying suspects by their facial features. The increasing reliance on machine-assisted legal decision-making impacts the rights of criminal defendants, the work of law enforcement agents, the legal strategies taken by attorneys, the decisions made by judges, and the public’s trust in courts. As such, it is crucial to understand how the use of AI is perceived by the professionals who interact with algorithms. The analysis explores the connection between law enforcement and legal professionals’ stated and behavioral trust. Results from three rigorous survey experiments suggest that law enforcement and legal professionals express skepticism about algorithms but demonstrate a willingness to integrate their recommendations into their own decisions and, thus, do not exhibit “algorithm aversion.” These findings suggest that there could be a tendency towards increased reliance on machine-assisted legal decision-making despite concerns about the impact of AI on the rights of criminal defendants.more » « less
-
Given their place within the judicial hierarchy, judges on lower courts face a complex array of challenges including heavy caseloads, mandatory dockets, and the threat of Supreme Court reversal. Despite the extensive scholarship on the American courts, little is known about judicial interactions in comparative contexts. We articulate and evaluate a framework for lower court adherence to Supreme Court precedents by leveraging a cross-national design in three countries—Canada, the United Kingdom, and the United States—with similar systems but meaningful institutional variability. We find that the mechanisms promulgating adherence to Supreme Court precedents do not substantially vary across design or institutional context. Instead, our results demonstrate that legal factors exert a consistent, homogeneous effect on lower court compliance across judicial systems. Our work offers new and important implications for studies on law and courts and comparative institutions, more broadly.more » « less
-
The authors examine how people interpret expert claims when they do not share experts’ technical understanding. The authors review sociological research on the cultural boundaries of science and expertise, which suggests that scientific disciplines are heuristics nonspecialists use to evaluate experts’ credibility. To test this idea, the authors examine judicial decisions about contested expert evidence in U.S. district courts ( n = 575). Multinomial logistic regression results show that judges favor evidence from natural scientists compared with social scientists, even after adjusting for other differences among experts, judges, and court cases. Judges also favor evidence from medical and health experts compared with social scientists. These results help illustrate the assumptions held by judges about the credibility of some disciplines relative to others. They also suggest that judges may rely on tacit assumptions about the merits of different areas of science, which may reflect broadly shared cultural beliefs about expertise and credibility.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.36644/mlr.123.8.law
