Centering People, Producing Narratives, and Exposing Myths in Criminal Law and Procedure
The workshop addressed fundamental questions about how lawyers construct narratives around people experiencing criminal legal harm and injustice. Key inquiries included: How have narratives supported racial inequality, hypercriminalization, overpolicing, and mass incarceration? How can narratives promote awareness of systemic wrongs and create momentum for legal change? How do simplified popular narratives obscure complex truths?
The session employed a unique paired presentation format where scholars presented each other’s papers, fostering collaborative dialogue. Eleven papers were presented across six pairs, with Professor Michael Vitiello, University of the Pacific, McGeorge School of Law, serving as a commentator. Topics ranged from prosecutorial minimalism and restorative justice to pardons, labor defense organizations, and voter zoning.
Some examples included:
- Texas A&M University School of Law Professor Cynthia Alkon’s work on “The Story of Dolan Hinton,” chronicling her 25-year relationship with a former client who received a nine-year sentence on a three-strikes case in 1990s Los Angeles. The narrative explores how a brief encouraging comment during plea negotiations had a lasting impact on the client’s life, challenging assumptions about the effectiveness of public defense work and illustrating the human consequences of mass incarceration policies.
- University of Tulsa College of Law Professor Stephen Galoob’s paper “Narratives and Native Nations,” discussing empirical research on McGirt v. Oklahoma’s impact on federal prosecution of Native defendants. The work examines complex jurisdictional questions while distinguishing between justice-focused narratives and fundamental questions of governmental legitimacy and sovereignty in Native nations.
- Columbia Law School Professor Amber Alexia Baylor’s thoughts on “Legal Technicalities and Dollree Mapp,” reframing public discourse around the exclusionary rule and what we should focus on surrounding the criminal justice system. The work explores how Dollree Mapp, the defendant in the foundational Fourth Amendment case, later became a prison advocate who argued that the real “smoke and mirrors” existed within the criminal legal system itself, not in the legal technicalities that attorneys discussed re: the exclusionary rule that shield defendants from unlawful state conduct.
- Professor Stephen Henderson, University of Oklahoma, presented a philosophical defense of executive clemency powers, responding to recent criticism of presidential pardons by both Democratic and Republican administrations. Henderson argues that despite their often “ugly” implementations, pardons remain essential instruments of mercy in criminal justice systems.
- Professor J.D. King, Washington and Lee University School of Law, examined the competition between three organizations – the Communist Party USA’s International Labor Defense (ILD), the NAACP, and the ACLU – for control of high-profile criminal cases involving Black defendants in the American South during the 1930s and 1940s. King explores the ethics of politically motivated criminal defense, noting accusations that organizations used defendants as “pawns” for broader political struggles. The tension between zealous individual representation and organizational mission-building raises questions about dual loyalties in criminal defense.
Other professors that discussed other discussant works and commented on their own included Professor Omavi Shukur, Columbia Law School, Professor Rachel Wechsler, University of Missouri School of Law, Professor Russell Gold, University of Alabama School of Law, Professor Melanie Reid, Lincoln Memorial University Duncan School of Law, Professor Tamika Griffin Moses, University of Richmond School of Law, and Professor Carla Laroche, Tulane University Law School.
Tuesday, July 29, 2025, 3:00 pm – 6:00 pm