In a new era of computational legal scholarship, computational tools exist with the capacity to quickly and efficiently reveal hidden inequalities in the criminal legal system. Technically, laws exist that legally entitle the public to the requisite court records. However, the opaque bureaucracy of courts prevents us from connecting the public to documents they have a right to access. We exemplify this legal ethical problem by investigating areas of law where codified protections against inequalities exist and where computational tools could help us understand if those protections are being enforced. In general, the computational requirements of such projects needn’t be complex, making them even more attractive as solutions for auditing legal system processes. Using the backdrop of a national audit of public records policies to retrieve criminal jury trial transcripts, we establish the impossibility of securing the public records needed to quantify the illegal use of racially motivated peremptory strikes. We argue that the lack of opacity or availability of these policies serve as a bottleneck to the relatively simple computational process of quantifying previously unknown language and events in criminal jury trials. This Article considers the ethical implications of the lack of access to records that are legally public and considers how this lack of access to records becomes an access to justice problem.

在计算法律学术的新时代，存在能够快速有效地揭示刑事法律制度中隐藏的不平等现象的计算工具。从技术上讲，法律允许公众合法地获得必要的法庭记录。然而，法院不透明的官僚机构阻止我们将公众与他们有权访问的文件联系起来。我们通过调查存在针对不平等的成文保护以及计算工具可以帮助我们了解是否正在执行这些保护的法律领域来举例说明这一法律伦理问题。一般来说，此类项目的计算要求并不复杂，这使得它们作为审计法律系统流程的解决方案更具吸引力。使用国家公共记录政策审计的背景来检索刑事陪审团的审判记录，我们确定不可能保护量化非法使用出于种族动机的强制罢工所需的公共记录。我们认为，这些政策的不透明性或可用性的缺乏是在刑事陪审团审判中量化以前未知的语言和事件的相对简单的计算过程的瓶颈。本文考虑了无法访问合法公开的记录的伦理影响，并考虑了无法访问记录如何成为诉诸司法的问题。我们认为，这些政策的不透明性或可用性的缺乏是在刑事陪审团审判中量化以前未知的语言和事件的相对简单的计算过程的瓶颈。本文考虑了无法访问合法公开的记录的伦理影响，并考虑了无法访问记录如何成为诉诸司法的问题。我们认为，这些政策的不透明性或可用性的缺乏是在刑事陪审团审判中量化以前未知的语言和事件的相对简单的计算过程的瓶颈。本文考虑了无法访问合法公开的记录的伦理影响，并考虑了无法访问记录如何成为诉诸司法的问题。