The research provides important insights into criminal adjudications in the U.S. and includes "expanding, testing, and disseminating novel plea-simulation software designed for both research and educational purposes."
2/2

Current SCDB flat data files (along with lots more info on the SCDB) are here: scdb.la.psu.edu

Online queryable data--one of my personal favorite features of the modern SCBD--are available through 2023 here: scdb.wustl.edu/analysis.php

4/4

The SCDB contains 247 pieces of info across 6 categories of variables: identifiers, background, chronological, substantive, outcome, and voting/opinion.

3/

The database "is a comprehensive, public, multi-user data resource containing information about every case decided by the United States Supreme Court from its first decision in 1791 to today."

2/

The really great news? Avraham continues to update the database today! See papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.... and links within.

#LowCostHighImpact 4/4

The data have been frequently used and cited, with an impact that extends from scholars to policymakers to journalists. 3/

The data record things like details on the reform, whether juries are allowed to be informed of it, how state courts responded to the reform, and whether it was amended by the state legislature. 2/

Users of the manual include judges (federal and state) but also attorneys, legal scholars, and law students (and likely many more). 4/4 #LowCostHighImpact

Coverage includes important but highly technical topics like DNA identification and genetic testing, expert testimony, statistical models, survey research, economic damages calculation, toxicology, and more. 3/

This project brings together a "committee of 10-12 members representing...legal and scientific/ engineering/ medical communities" to partner with the Federal Judicial Center to develop an updated "science for judges" manual. 2/

The project uses jury simulations to "examine jurors' and juries' sensitivity to strong versus weak scientific information presented in court" and whether safeguards can improve jurors' inferences from scientific information. 3/3

As the investigators note, jurors are "non-experts who do not possess the necessary tools to differentiate between weak and strong scientific information when making decisions." 2/

I'll feature recent & older grants. Some by people I know, some by folks I have never met. I will start in the law & science area but over time may veer beyond that. I'll use data on grants archived by the NSF, w/ titles, names, and abstracts sourced from there. 4/4

The projects yield publicly-available datasets that go on to serve as the backbone for books & articles & introduce students & policymakers to powerful new ways to think in depth about judges, lawyers, litigants, defendants, policies, & more. 3/

These funded projects are/were often low cost & high impact, tackling significant legal research Qs that help to better society, shape future practices & processes in courts, inform us on public opinion & policy effectiveness, & impact litigants. 2/