Lower state courts are the focus of both international and national access to justice policies and programs but remain understudied in Uganda. Drawing on 3 years of ethnographically informed research on citizen engagement with a busy magistrates' court in post-war northern Uganda, we show the diverse reasons why citizens appeal to the rule-of-law in places where state authority is contested. In a context of limited statehood, against a backdrop of high-levels of corruption and inefficiency in the judicial system, people turn to lower state courts for normative, pragmatic, and tactical reasons that are not well captured by conventional measures of procedural justice. Our findings extend theory on citizen-authority relations in a global context, shedding light on contextual meanings of legitimacy, trust, and corruption in places where lower state courts are deeply problematic sites for achieving justice.

How does a potential juror's association with the criminal legal system matter during jury selection? Growing scholarship examines statutory exclusions of people with felony convictions, sometimes characterizing felon-juror exclusion as a collateral consequence of mass incarceration. Less research has considered whether court officials seek to exclude potential jurors based on lower-level forms of contact or perceived association. We draw on interviews with 103 lawyers and judges in a Northeastern state to examine how court officials think about juror bias in relation to criminal legal association beyond felon status. We find that court officials often seek to remove people perceived to be offenders with lower-level forms of system association as well as people perceived to be crime victims. These exclusionary efforts extend to also exclude perceived offenders' and victims' social networks. These practices are racialized and gendered, likely contributing to the systematic exclusion of marginalized racial/ethnic groups and women. This article expands the collateral consequences literature in two ways: first, by revealing how collateral consequences can be conceptualized not just in relation to people criminalized by the law but also in relation to those whom the law constructs as victims; and second, by underscoring how collateral consequences feed back into the system to reproduce its unequal administration.

Different from “judicial repression,” stability justice targets ordinary individuals under the guise of formal judicial procedures, to maintain both social stability and governance legitimacy. Drawing on published judgments and the authors' interviews with judges and prosecutors in China, we find that, in conjunction with the gradual abandonment of traditional violent repression strategies, stability justice has been employed as an alternative tool for managing petitioning activities at the local level. Through the covertly biased application of legal rules and procedural norms, petitioners accused of threatening social stability receive longer terms of pre-trial detention, higher rates of detention before politically sensitive periods, longer custodial sentences, and fewer opportunities for probation. Our findings add new fuel to studies on comparative judicial politics and shed light on judicial behavior in contemporary China.

Jury service is a positive, even transformative, experience for many jurors. Prior research establishes that jurors who deliberate on a court case develop more positive views of courts in the relatively short time of jury service, but we know little about the reasons underlying why these positive changes develop. This research focuses on changes in jurors' views after serving on criminal cases because jury service is one of the few opportunities community members have to participate directly in the criminal justice system, with jurors acting as the conscience of the community regarding the extent of prosecutorial power. Unlike most work using actual jurors, this research utilizes surveys with jurors both before and after jury service to understand how jury service brings about increased trust in courts. We examine the influence of three categories of potential factors, deliberating on a case, juror satisfaction, and jurors' attitudes relating to law and justice, finding all three categories work together to significantly predict whether jurors' trust in courts increases, decreases, or stays the same. Policy suggestions include developing innovative ways to capitalize on the positive and overall legitimizing aspects of jury service in criminal cases by increasing community members' meaningful involvement in the courts.

How and to what extent do defense actors use publicity in trials of protesters in contemporary Russia? Why do they fight over strategic uses of publicity if “everything is decided in advance”? Drawing on original ethnographic research, this article finds, first, that publicity accompanies legal resistance to politicized prosecutions and is inventively used by the defense. Second, mobilization of publicity creates opportunities for the defense to bargain with and keep the prosecution in check. Third, the relationship between publicity and legal resistance in repressive settings is ambiguous. Some human rights lawyers embrace publicity and others avoid it. I argue that this divergence should be interpreted in relation to lawyers' embeddedness in different professional ecologies. At the same time, lawyers' publicity strategies are altered by the interactional dimension of the trial. The latter manifests itself on two levels: at the micro-level of a courtroom and in the public sphere where different publics engage in debates that interfere with lawyers' defense strategies. This paper has broader implications for the analysis of defensive legal mobilization in dual legal systems beyond the Russian case.

When activists use the law to promote social change, how does the branch of law (criminal law, civil law, etc.) matter for movement outcomes? To examine this question, the article builds on legal mobilization scholarship, and on a qualitative study comparing three litigation strategies to contest racialized policing in France: mobilizing criminal law to hold officers accountable for police killings, mobilizing civil law to sue the state for racial profiling, and combining criminal and civil law to contest racialized police harassment. The findings suggest that three characteristics of legal branches matter for legal mobilization: (i) the branch's dominant paradigm (e.g., punitive vs. compensatory) determines how the problem gets framed and which actors are blamed for it; (ii) the legal provisions of each branch shape which aspects of the problem get highlighted, and which are obscured; (iii) the procedural and evidentiary rules determine the extent to which activists and victims can intervene in the fact-finding process and thus how much they can influence the strength of their claims in court. When they mobilize the law, social change actors strategize around the opportunities and constraints of various branches of law, to try influencing judicial decisions and the media coverage of cases.