This research examines how cultural narratives of “monsters” shape legal perceptions of marginalized groups, particularly queer people of color. Using a utopian framework, it proposes equity-based reforms to the criminal justice system, addressing the intersection of race and sexuality and amplifying underrepresented voices in legal scholarship and social justice discourse.

This research examines how prior victim or defendant status influences courtroom outcomes. Using Philadelphia court data, it finds that individuals with dual roles receive different treatment depending on context—leniency as defendants but weaker outcomes as victims. The findings challenge assumptions of neutrality and raise concerns about fairness and consistency in the justice system.

This research examines how trauma-related emotional expression influences police perceptions of victim credibility in sexual assault cases. By testing whether brief trauma education reduces bias, it proposes a low-cost intervention to improve investigative decisions. The goal is to ensure victims are believed based on evidence, not emotional display, promoting justice and accountability.

This research examines the legal risks of mind-reading neurotechnology in criminal justice. By developing a neurorights framework—covering mental autonomy, privacy, and integrity—it aims to protect freedom of thought while enabling responsible forensic use of brain data as neurotechnologies rapidly advance.