Our Work
Featured
Introduces a new metric for assessing judges: Failure to protect constitutional rights against law enforcement overreach. We analyze appellate decisions to identify cases where trial court judges ruled that officers acted constitutionally in obtaining evidence, but were overturned by higher courts.
This factsheet introduces a new method for enhancing judicial transparency using large language models (LLMs) to analyze judicial texts. By converting appellate decisions into data, this method identifies complex legal issues and their outcomes, offering valuable insights for policymakers and the public.
We strongly support this bill because it will streamline NYS court filing, increase transparency, and save taxpayer dollars.
Scrutinize announces the launch of Judicial Profiles, an online platform providing comprehensive profiles of New York judges.
A new metric for assessing individual judges’ decisions and impacts: Reassignments to a Different Judge (RDJs), which serve as a red flag, suggesting the possibility of judicial impropriety that goes beyond getting the law wrong.
A new metric for assessing individual judges’ decisions and impacts: exceptionally punitive sentences, so severe that even appellate judges could not uphold them.
Our groups support this bill because robustly funded ethics oversight agencies are the first line of defense against corruption, misconduct, and the abuse of public trust.
Today, on behalf of Scrutinize, the New York Civil Liberties Union and the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic submitted Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) requests…
At most 6% of New York’s written criminal court decisions are available to the public online.
The decisions of NYC most carceral judges resulted in appx. 580 additional people detained and $77 million in taxpayer costs.