Explore the vast range of titles available.

This article develops a new test for identifying racial bias in the context of bail decisions—a high-stakes setting with large disparities between white and black defendants. We motivate our analysis using Becker’s model of racial bias, which predicts that rates of pretrial misconduct will be identical for marginal white and marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially unbiased. In contrast, marginal white defendants will have higher rates of misconduct than marginal black defendants if bail judges are racially biased, whether that bias is driven by racial animus, inaccurate racial stereotypes, or any other form of bias. To test the model, we use the release tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to identify the relevant race-specific misconduct rates. Estimates from Miami and Philadelphia show that bail judges are racially biased against black defendants, with substantially more racial bias among both inexperienced and part-time judges. We find suggestive evidence that this racial bias is driven by bail judges relying on inaccurate stereotypes that exaggerate the relative danger of releasing black defendants.

Over 20 percent of prison and jail inmates in the United States are currently awaiting trial, but little is known about the impact of pretrial detention on defendants. This paper uses the detention tendencies of quasi-randomly assigned bail judges to estimate the causal effects of pretrial detention on subsequent defendant outcomes. Using data from administrative court and tax records, we find that pretrial detention significantly increases the probability of conviction, primarily through an increase in guilty pleas. Pretrial detention has no net effect on future crime, but decreases formal sector employment and the receipt of employment- and tax-related government benefits. These results are consistent with (i) pretrial detention weakening defendants’ bargaining positions during plea negotiations and (ii) a criminal conviction lowering defendants’ prospects in the formal labor market.

Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996, individuals convicted of drug-related felonies were permanently banned from receiving welfare and food stamps. Since then, over 30 states have opted out of the federal ban. In this paper, I estimate the impact of public assistance eligibility on recidivism by exploiting both the adoption of the federal ban and subsequent passage of state laws that lifted the ban. Using administrative prison records on five million offenders and a triple-differences research design, I find that public assistance eligibility for drug offenders reduces one-year recidivism rates by 10 percent.

This paper investigates whether judge political affiliation contributes to racial and gender disparities in sentencing using data on over 500,000 federal defendants linked to sentencing judge. Exploiting random case assignment, we find that Republican-appointed judges sentence black defendants to 3.0 more months than similar nonblacks and female defendants to 2.0 fewer months than similar males compared to Democratic-appointed judges, 65 percent of the baseline racial sentence gap and 17 percent of the baseline gender sentence gap, respectively. These differences cannot be explained by other judge characteristics and grow substantially larger when judges are granted more discretion.

In this Article, we provide a new statistical and Iegal framework to understand the legality and fairness of predictive algorithms under the Equal Protection Clause. We begin by reviewing the main legal concerns regarding the use of protected characteristics such as race and the correlates of protected characteristics such as criminal history. The use of race and nonrace correlates in predictive algorithms generates direct and proxy effects of race, respectively, that can lead to racial disparities that many view as unwarranted and discriminatory. These effects have led to the mainstream legal consensus that the use of race and nonrace correlates in predictive algorithms is both problematic and potentially unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause. This mainstream position is also reflected in practice, with all commonly used predictive algorithms excluding race and many excluding nonrace correlates such as employment and education. Next, we challenge the mainstream legal position that the use of a protected characteristic always violates the Equal Protection Clause. We develop a statistical framework that formalizes exactly how the direct and proxy effects of race can lead to algorithmic predictions that disadvantage minorities relative to nonminorities. While an overly formalistic solution requires exclusion of race and all potential nonrace correlates, we show that this type of algorithm is unlikely to work in practice because nearly all algorithmic inputs are correlated with race. We then show that there are two simple statistical solutions that can eliminate the direct and proxy effects of race, and which are implementable even when all inputs are correlated with race. We argue that our proposed algorithms uphold the principles of the equal protection doctrine because they ensure that individuals are not treated differently on the basis of membership in a protected class, in stark contrast to commonly used algorithms that unfairly disadvantage minorities despite the exclusion of race. We conclude by empirically testing our proposed algorithms in the context of the New York City pretrial system. We show that nearly all commonly used algorithms violate certain principles underlying the Equal Protection Clause by including variables that are correlated with race, generating substantial proxy effects that unfairly disadvantage Black individuals relative to white individuals. Both of our proposed algorithms substantially reduce the number of Black defendants detained compared to commonly used algorithms by eliminating these proxy effects. These findings suggest a fundamental rethinking of the equal protection doctrine as it applies to predictive algorithms and the folly of relying on commonly used algorithms.

The federal sentencing guidelines were created to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities among similar defendants. This paper explores the impact of increased judicial discretion on racial disparities in sentencing after the guidelines were struck down in United States v. Booker (543 U.S. 220 [2005]). Using data on the universe of federal defendants, I find that black defendants received 2 months more in prison compared with their white counterparts after Booker, a 4 percent increase in average sentence length. To identify the sources of racial disparities, I construct a data set linking judges to defendants. Exploiting the random assignment of cases to judges, I find that racial disparities after Booker were greater among judges appointed after Booker, which suggests acculturation to the guidelines by judges with experience sentencing under a mandatory-guidelines regime. Prosecutors also responded to increased judicial discretion after Booker by charging black defendants with binding mandatory minimum sentences.

Sotorasib, a specific, irreversible KRASG12C protein inhibitor, has shown monotherapy clinical activity in KRASG12C-mutated solid tumours, including colorectal cancer, in the CodeBreaK100 phase 1 trial. We aimed to investigate the activity and safety of sotorasib in phase 2 of the trial. In this single-arm, phase 2 trial, adult patients with KRASG12C-mutated advanced solid tumours were enrolled, from 59 medical centres in 11 countries, if they were aged 18 years or older, had at least one measurable lesion according to the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) version 1.1, and had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 or lower. Only data for patients with colorectal cancer, enrolled at 33 medical centres in nine countries, are presented from this basket trial. To be enrolled, the patients had to have progressed after receiving fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan treatment. These patients were administered 960 mg sotorasib orally once per day until disease progression, development of unacceptable side-effects, withdrawal of consent, or death. The primary endpoint was objective response (complete or partial response) as assessed by blinded independent central review. Response was evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of sotorasib and had at least one measurable lesion at baseline; safety was evaluated in patients who received at least one dose of sotorasib. This analysis is a prespecified analysis triggered by the phase 2 colorectal cancer cohort. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03600883, and is active but no longer recruiting. On March 1, 2021, at data cutoff, 62 patients with KRASG12C-mutant colorectal cancer had been enrolled between Aug 14, 2019, and May 21, 2020, and had received at least one dose of sotorasib monotherapy. Objective response was observed in six (9·7%, 95% CI 3·6–19·9) of 62 patients, all with partial response. Treatment-related adverse events at grade 3 occurred in six (10%) patients, the most common of which was diarrhoea (two [3%] of 62 patients), and at grade 4 occurred in one (2%) patient (blood creatine phosphokinase increase); no fatal events were recorded. Serious treatment-related adverse events occurred in two (3%) patients (back pain and acute kidney injury). Although the 9·7% overall response rate did not reach the benchmark, oral administration of sotorasib once per day showed modest anti-tumour activity and manageable safety in these heavily pretreated chemorefractory patients. Sotorasib is under evaluation in combination with other therapeutics to increase potential activity and overcome potential resistance mechanisms. Amgen.

In this article, we review a growing empirical literature on the effectiveness and fairness of the US pretrial system and discuss its policy implications. Despite the importance of this stage of the criminal legal process, researchers have only recently begun to explore how the pretrial system balances individual rights and public interests. We describe the empirical challenges that have prevented progress in this area and how recent work has made use of new data sources and quasi-experimental approaches to credibly estimate both the individual harms (such as loss of employment or government assistance) and public benefits (such as preventing non-appearance at court and new crimes) of cash bail and pretrial detention. These new data and approaches show that the current pretrial system imposes substantial short- and long-term economic harms on detained defendants in terms of lost earnings and government assistance, while providing little in the way of decreased criminal activity for the public interest. Non-appearances at court do significantly decrease for detained defendants, but the magnitudes cannot justify the economic harms to individuals observed in the data. A second set of studies shows that that the costs of cash bail and pretrial detention are disproportionately borne by Black and Hispanic individuals, giving rise to large and unfair racial differences in cash bail and detention that cannot be explained by underlying differences in pretrial misconduct risk. We then turn to policy implications and describe areas of future work that would enable a deeper understanding of what drives these undesirable outcomes.

Steven Rosenberg and colleagues report that PD-1 is a biomarker of CD8 + T cells in the blood that recognize mutated neoantigens in melanoma. Detection of lymphocytes that target tumor-specific mutant neoantigens—derived from products encoded by mutated genes in the tumor—is mostly limited to tumor-resident lymphocytes 1 , 2 , but whether these lymphocytes often occur in the circulation is unclear. We recently reported that intratumoral expression of the programmed cell death 1 (PD-1) receptor can guide the identification of the patient-specific repertoire of tumor-reactive CD8 + lymphocytes that reside in the tumor 3 . In view of these findings, we investigated whether PD-1 expression on peripheral blood lymphocytes could be used as a biomarker to detect T cells that target neoantigens. By using a high-throughput personalized screening approach, we identified neoantigen-specific lymphocytes in the peripheral blood of three of four melanoma patients. Despite their low frequency in the circulation, we found that CD8 + PD-1 + , but not CD8 + PD-1 − , cell populations had lymphocytes that targeted 3, 3 and 1 unique, patient-specific neoantigens, respectively. We show that neoantigen-specific T cells and gene-engineered lymphocytes expressing neoantigen-specific T cell receptors (TCRs) isolated from peripheral blood recognized autologous tumors. Notably, the tumor-antigen specificities and TCR repertoires of the circulating and tumor-infiltrating CD8 + PD-1 + cells appeared similar, implying that the circulating CD8 + PD-1 + lymphocytes could provide a window into the tumor-resident antitumor lymphocytes. Thus, expression of PD-1 identifies a diverse and patient-specific antitumor T cell response in peripheral blood, providing a novel noninvasive strategy to develop personalized therapies using neoantigen-reactive lymphocytes or TCRs to treat cancer.

This paper estimates the effect of Chapter 13 bankruptcy protection on financial health using a new data set linking bankruptcy filings to credit bureau records. Our empirical strategy uses the leniency of randomly assigned judges as an instrument for Chapter 13 protection. We find that Chapter 13 protection decreases an index measuring adverse financial events such as civil judgments and repossessions by 0.323 standard deviations and increases the probability of being a homeowner by 13.2 percentage points. Chapter 13 protection has little impact on open unsecured debt but decreases the amount of debt in collections by $1,333.