Lawmakers and scholars on both sides of the aisle have publicly expressed their opinions on President Biden’s April 6, 2021 creation of the Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States to examine the merits of reforming the nation’s highest court. Reactions between and within parties have been mixed: some Democrats view reforms as a means of “taking back the court” from “conservative” Justices, while a few Republicans have accused progressives of trying to “pack the court.” This is the first attempt to reform the Supreme Court in nearly a century, leaving many scholars and lawmakers skeptical of the President’s true motivation. On April 15, a group of Democrats introduced legislation to add four justices to the Supreme Court, signaling progressives’ desire to move forward with reform. However, the proposed law and new commission are unlikely to result in any real change.

This article explores the ways COVID-19 has impacted the process of jury trials, particularly as it relates to jury selection and witness testimony. Without a national standard, there is a great risk that convictions will be appealed or even overturned due to Constitutional Violations. While this is certainly an unprecedented time, action needs to be taken to ensure Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights of defendants are met while at the same time ensuring public safety for potential jurors.

In 2019, the Supreme Court ruled that, in certain cases, inmates who develop dementia and other forms of cognitive dysfunction since their trials and sentencing can prevent death row inmates from being executed. Although this upholds a prior precedent, it raises questions about the Eighth Amendment’s application to incarcerated individuals that develop dementia while serving their sentence: is prison a cruel and unusual punishment if an individual does not understand or remember why they are incarcerated? What does this mean for the ever-aging prison population in the United States, especially as life expectancy increases and “life without parole” sentences become longer?

This article examines the implications of the Supreme Court’s recent decision that upholds a Kansas law barring one of the generally accepted applications of the so-called Insanity Defense. After a brief historical overview, it looks toward the potential impact mentally ill defendants may face, not only in the state of Kansas, but across the country

This article examines the positives and negatives of the use of smartwatch data as evidence in criminal trials. Across the globe, the prevalence of this practice has increased but there has yet to be a standard set by the Supreme Court. With judges left to their own devices, the evidence tends to be accepted despite lawyers and defendants arguing that it violates their Fifth Amendment rights. Companies are straightforward about their data sharing policies and the reliability of their devices, leaving it up to consumers to be aware of how their data may be subpoenaed. Although smartwatches are not medical equipment, they are accurate enough to assist investigators in piecing together a timeline.