Episodes

  • Episode 33: Are Federal Regulations Protecting Prisoners or Paralyzing Research?

    Episode 33: Are Federal Regulations Protecting Prisoners or Paralyzing Research?
    Jan 27 2026
    This episode of "Proof Over Precedent" brings together IRB Director Shannon Sewards and A2J Lab Faculty Director and podcast host Jim Greiner to talk about the complexity of ethical research involving incarcerated individuals and the balance between maintaining those ethical standards and advancing social and behavioral research. The discussion also delves into the differences between protections for biomedical research and those for behavioral research.
    Show More Show Less
    42 mins
  • Episode 32: Arbitration vs. Litigation -- Who Benefits?

    Episode 32: Arbitration vs. Litigation -- Who Benefits?
    Jan 19 2026
    When it comes to consumer protection, signing off on the fine print may equate to signing off certain legal rights and agreeing not to sue a company in court but rather to use arbitration. Does the process actually matter? Several studies find variances in consumer financial relief and win rates, along with potential incentives in mandatory arbitration that could discredit the integrity of the process. The latest "Proof Over Precedent" episode calls for new research to address the shortcomings of existing studies and to provide definitive findings on mandatory arbitration's impact on consumers.
    Show More Show Less
    16 mins
  • Episode 31: Life Without Parole—a Death Sentence in Disguise

    Episode 31: Life Without Parole—a Death Sentence in Disguise
    Jan 12 2026
    In this "Student Voices" episode, HLS J.D. candidate Kristen Arnold looks at the procedural shortcomings of life sentences without the possibility of parole, particularly in comparison to capital punishment cases. She dives into the injustices of the LWOP procedure, the no-hope consequences for inmates and the system, and opportunity for a randomized control trial in the field to improve fairness.
    Show More Show Less
    18 mins
  • Episode 30: Do Judges Actually Read Search Warrants?

    Episode 30: Do Judges Actually Read Search Warrants?
    Jan 6 2026
    Despite search warrants being a topic of significant interest in court cases and legal scholarship, the process of obtaining warrants offers comparatively little information. But when researchers found a surprising public data point in this field, their analysis led to sobering findings regarding the time judges spend reviewing warrants and the high approval rates of such warrants. In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the researchers discuss their work, the data analysis process, and the implications of potentially insufficient judicial review of warrants.
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 3 mins
  • Episode 28: Pretrial Detention Efficacy and Alternatives

    Episode 28: Pretrial Detention Efficacy and Alternatives
    Dec 22 2025
    This Student Voices episode focuses on the data and studies pointing to the shortcomings of pretrial detention – the significant costs, lack of impact on reducing crime, and shortage of failure-to-appear connections. HLS JD candidate Leann Poarch instead suggests a low-cost, relatively low-tech alternative that may be more effective.
    Show More Show Less
    25 mins
  • Episode 27: The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention

    Episode 27: The Hidden Costs of Pretrial Detention
    Dec 16 2025
    In this Student Voices episode, HLS J.D. candidate Leann Poarch discusses the significant costs of detaining individuals who await trial, such as legal fees, loss of employment, and long-term economic and psychological effects. Given that detaining individuals not yet convicted can cost local governments more than $13 billion, is it time to look into reforming the pretrial system?
    Show More Show Less
    26 mins
  • Episode 26: When is Informed Consent Unnecessary?

    Episode 26: When is Informed Consent Unnecessary?
    Dec 9 2025
    Image by Courtney Chrystal, J.D. candidate, Harvard Law School

    In this episode of Proof Over Precedent, the fourth in a series on Ethics in the Law, host Jim Greiner talks again with IRB expert Shannon Sewards to discuss the complexities and criteria involved in obtaining waivers of informed consent within the realm of social science and legal research, comparing it to the regulations governing medical research. The two dive into an A2J Lab study on pretrial risk assessment tools to use as an example in determining the necessity of obtaining informed consent. When does protecting study participants take precedence, and when do critical research needs supersede those of participants?

    Read the corresponding blog post.

    Speakers:

    • Shannon Sewards, Director of the Human Research Protection Program, Dartmouth Health; former Director, Harvard University Area IRB
    • Jim Greiner, Honorable S. William Green Professor of Public Law at Harvard Law School; Faculty Director of the Access to Justice Lab at Harvard Law School

    Resources mentioned:

    • General Requirements for Informed Consent (45 C.F.R § 46.116)
    • General Waiver or Alteration of Consent (45 C.F.R § 46.116(f)
    • Office of Human Research Protection
    • Common Rule (45 C.F.R § 46(a)

    Related “Ethics in the Law” series episodes:

    • Episode 8: Ethics in Research — IRBs and the Common Rule Explained
    • Episode 10: What is Human Subjects Research in Law?
    • Episode 14: Ethical Conundrums in Legal Research

    Share feedback and relevant topics you would like the A2J Lab to discuss: a2jlab@law.harvard.edu

    Stay connected with the Access to Justice Lab:

    • Email newsletter
    • Facebook
    • BlueSky
    • LinkedIn
    • YouTube

    Support the A2J

    Proof Over Precedent cover art by Courtney Chrystal
    Show More Show Less
    1 hr and 3 mins
  • Episode 25: Legal Labyrinths Reveal Divorce Filing Woes

    Episode 25: Legal Labyrinths Reveal Divorce Filing Woes
    Dec 2 2025
    Why is it so hard logistically to file for divorce when legally some cases are quite simple and uncomplicated? This second divorce study episode of Proof Over Precedent dives into the data behind the hassle factors and shares the surprising results of measuring the pro se accessibility of a court system. Maybe the answer isn't more lawyers.
    Show More Show Less
    58 mins