AI for Public Defense
Assistant Professor
Postdoc
Ph.D. Student
Postdoc
There are no rows in this table
If you are interested in participating, please fill out this !
💁 Who We Are
We are researchers at the at Princeton University, headed by , with NLP, law, and ML backgrounds. Our research is centered at the intersection of law and technology.
🎓 Selected Previous Work
❔ Why We Build AI for Public Defense
We are developing a legal AI tool (free and open source) that can help with the day-to-day work of public defenders. Most U.S. criminal defendants are represented by public defenders (PDs), who consistently face higher caseloads than recommended by professional guidelines (). The burnouts, poor working conditions, and emotional burdens of public defenders have long been documented (; ; ; ; ; ), which resulted in the inadequate representations protected by the Sixth Amendment and .
There is growing interest in whether AI systems could help streamline the heavy human workload. However, existing AI tools pose concerns such as confidentiality of information, inaccuracy, and limited understanding of contexts. Large law firms make substantive investments customized legal AI tools, but such resources are unavailable to professionals in the public defense sector. In fact, even access to standard legal databases like LexisNexis or Westlaw is a luxury for many.
⚒️ How We Will Develop AI for Public Defense
For this project, we want to ground AI development in the actual needs of people working on the front line, using . The first step is to conduct qualitative interviews with legal professionals in the public defense sectors. This design process will be bi-directional and collaborative, ensuring that participants play an active role beyond the interviews. We will share the interview findings with all participants and partnering public defender offices, fostering ongoing involvement in the tool’s development.
💬 Interview Process
We are recruiting participants with relevant experience in the public defense sector (e.g., public defender, investigator, specialists). The interview will be held remotely on Zoom for about 60 minutes. We utilize because participants engage more quickly and meaningfully when they can directly apply their on-the-ground experience, rather than discussing issues at an abstract level. To facilitate this, we will present participants with hypothetical legal questions based on fact patterns that public defenders commonly encounter. We will ask about their typical approach to finding relevant laws and investigating facts. Participants will also discuss how they strategize the use of existing AI tools (e.g., Westlaw Precision and ChatGPT), highlighting both their benefits and limitations. Additionally, we aim to explore how AI could better serve their needs as legal professionals. You can navigate the example cases in the below.
📖
Administrative subpoena for medical records
The United States Coast Guard (USCT)’s initial investigation suggested Gary Sharp may have fallen asleep at the helm when it struck the dolphin. Another crew member suggested Sharp had “dozed off” and “seemed tired.” The USCG discovered that for the past decade, all but one of Sharp's marine renewal applications were processed at a single urgent care facility. To investigate whether Cole had an underlying medical condition like sleep apnea that might have contributed to the accident, the USCG issued a subpoena seeking all of Sharp's medical records from July 1, 2016, through July 31, 2022 (six years preceding the accident). Is the USCG's administrative subpoena for six years of Sharp's medical records violated the Fourth Amendment by being overbroad and unduly burdensome?
federal
evidence & criminal procedure
“Conspicuous place”
Alison Barr chained herself to the doors of a federal courthouse at 6:30 a.m. to protest government policy. A uniformed Federal Protective Service officer approached her, identified himself as a law enforcement officer, and ordered her to remove the chains so the doors could be opened, warning that she would be arrested if she refused to comply within five minutes. No signs listing the federal regulations were visible to Barr from her position outside the courthouse, although 40 U.S.C. § 1315 required regulations to be posted in a "conspicuous place." Barr was convicted for failing to comply with the lawful direction of a federal police officer. Is Barr’s conviction valid when the applicable federal regulation was not posted in a “conspicuous place” visible to her, but she received verbal warnings from the officer?
federal
statutory interpretation
Bribery of unelected candidates
Does N.J.S.A. 2C:27-2, which imposes criminal liability for “bribery in official and political matters,” apply to a candidate for political office who is not an incumbent and is ultimately not elected?
state
statutory interpretation
Private conversations as evidence
In this trial for attempted murder, did recorded phone conversations in which defendant discussed the victim’s death satisfy the State’s burden to show that he took a substantial step toward causing the victim’s death? The evidence against defendant came largely from recorded and preserved conversations between defendant and others while he was incarcerated, during which defendant railed about the victim, insisting that she be prevented from testifying against him. His rantings ranged from anger that she had not already been killed to having bail posted for him so that he could do it himself.
state
evidence & criminal procedure
Jury instructions on organized street crimes
Did the trial court improperly instruct the jury that conspiracy is a predicate crime of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-30, promotion of organized street crime? During the jury charge conference, defendant objected to count four of the indictment, arguing that N.J.S.A. 2C:41-1’s “pattern of racketeering activity,” was not a predicate offense of N.J.S.A. 2C:33-30. The trial court agreed, but instead of striking that count, it amended the indictment by incorporating offenses relevant to the racketeering charge as predicate offenses to count four’s promoting charge.
state
statutory interpretation
Discriminatory sexual abuse
In this matter involving a sexual assault on a school bus, can plaintiffs maintain against defendants a gender-based claim under the New Jersey Law Against Discrimination? For five months when the victim was a pre-kindergarten student, she was repeatedly sexually assaulted by defendant. Defendant admitted in his deposition that he had sexually abused at least five children, including his own stepson, over a period of decades. During discovery, plaintiffs submitted evidence that although there were male and female children on the bus with C.V., Dean was only accused of sexually assaulting other female students, not male students.
state
civil rights
Search of the car in the police station
In this matter where the defendant had been arrested and his car was parked in the police station parking lot, could the police search his car without a warrant?
state
evidence & criminal procedure
Hot pursuit doctrine
When police officers attempt to execute an Automated Traffic System warrant and the subject flees, is it permissible for officers to enter a third party’s home under the hot pursuit doctrine?
state
evidence & criminal procedure
Joint venture with foreign law enforcement
Katie L. Jones was arrested after Homeland Security Investigations obtained a search warrant for her residence based on information from a foreign law enforcement agency that her IP address had been used to access child pornography on a dark web site. After being charged with receipt and possession of child pornography, Jones sought discovery about the investigative techniques used by the foreign law enforcement agency to identify her IP address, arguing this information might reveal a joint venture between U.S. and foreign law enforcement that violated her Fourth Amendment rights. What showing must a defendant make to compel discovery about the techniques used in such an investigation?
federal
evidence & criminal procedure
Collecting DNA of supervised person
Collin Davidson is serving a three-year term of supervised release after being convicted of a non-violent felony drug offense. He has maintained full employment, participated regularly in substance abuse treatment, and shown consistently negative results on drug tests for the past year. Davidson's probation officer has ordered him to submit a DNA sample pursuant to the DNA Analysis Backlog Elimination Act, which authorizes the collection of DNA from all individuals on supervised release who have been convicted of any federal felony. Davidson has refused. Does the compulsory collection of DNA from a non-violent, first-time offender on supervised release violate the Fourth Amendment's prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures?
federal
evidence & criminal procedure
Victim’s rights
Stevens J. Miller distributed heroin laced with fentanyl to a man. The man was later found dead in his car from an overdose, with his unharmed 3-year-old son present. Miller was arrested and appeared in court more than six months later to waive indictment and plead guilty. The prosecution had agreed to a lesser charge of simple distribution of heroin (violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and § 841(b)(1)(C)) instead of the more serious charge of distribution resulting in death, which would have carried a mandatory minimum 20-year sentence. This decision was made without consulting the victim's family beforehand and it was revealed that the victim’s mother remained unsatisfied with the charges. Additionally, the plea agreement does not mention potential financial support for a 3-year-old son. Should the court accept Miller's guilty plea when the prosecution entered into a plea agreement without first consulting with the victim's family?
federal
evidence & criminal procedure
💫 What Participants Gain from This Interview
This study is entirely voluntary, and no honorarium will be provided. We recognize that many professionals hired by or affiliated with public defender offices face restrictions on receiving gifts related to research participation. To ensure fairness and maintain the integrity of our study, we have designed this interview as a mutually beneficial and educational process.
As a participant, you will:
Our goal is to create a collaborative and informative experience where participants not only share their expertise but also gain valuable knowledge and influence the future of legal AI. Your insights will be invaluable in shaping the development of more effective AI tools that genuinely support legal work. Below are some example cases. Thanks for considering!
If you are interested in participating, please fill out this !
Want to print your doc?
This is not the way.
This is not the way.
Try clicking the ⋯ next to your doc name or using a keyboard shortcut (
CtrlP
) instead.