Jason Kreag

Interests

No activities entered.

Courses

Scholarly Contributions

Books

• Kreag, J. (2021). Trial Evidence. Wolters Kluwer.
  More info

  I joined Professor Mauet's Evidence casebook, Trial Evidence, for the next edition. I'm responsible for revising and adding to this new edition. I've been gathering material to update the book. In summer 2021, I started line-editing the most recent edition and gathering new practice problems for the next edition.
• Kreag, J. (2023). Trial Evidence. Aspen.
  More info

  I'm the principal co-author for the Eighth Edition of Trial Evidence with Prof. Tom Mauet and Judge Warren Wolfson. The book will be published in time for Fall 2023 classes.

Journals/Publications

• Kreag, J. (2018). The Brady Letter. Forthcoming.
  More info

  In prior work I explored ways to prevent prosecutorial conduct (including Brady violations) before it occurs. See The Brady Colloquy, Stanford Law Review Online (2014). I have also advocated for the use of advance metrics to identify prosecutors who are likely to commit misconduct. See Prosecutorial Analytics, Washington University Law Review (forthcoming 2017). And I have explored the impact of prosecutorial misconduct on jurors. See The Jury’s Brady Right, Boston University Law Review (forthcoming 2018). In this article, I focus on what should happen after a court finds that a prosecutor committed misconduct by failing to disclose favorable evidence to the defense pretrial (i.e., a Brady violation). Specifically, I argue for official disclosure to the trial jurors of the prosecutorial misconduct. I explore the justification for notifying jurors that the prosecutor committed misconduct in the case in which they served as jurors. I also outline several options for how to implement this notification, including voluntary disclosure by prosecutorial offices, court-mandated disclosure, and revisions to rules of criminal procedure to require notification to jurors.
• Kreag, J. (2015). Going Local: The Fragmentation of Genetic Surveillance. Boston University Law Review, 95(1491), 63.
  More info

  Abstract: The FBI’s two-decade-long dominance of the use of genetic surveillance for law enforcement purposes is ending. In its place, local police departments are creating DNA databases that operate outside of the FBI’s national DNA database network. These local databases, which until now have remained unexamined, promise local law enforcement agencies freedom from the federal laws and regulations that govern the FBI’s national network. This Article relies on original qualitative empirical research to describe why agencies created local databases and how these databases operate. It finds that while local DNA databases offer promise as a crime-solving tool, they generate harms that have so far been ignored. These harms include exacerbating racial inequities, threatening privacy and dignity interests, and undermining the legitimacy of the police. Because law enforcement agencies have not internalized these harms, the self-imposed regulations that currently restrain law enforcement’s use of local DNA databases are insufficient. This Article proposes several modest, yet effective, reforms that will minimize the harms generated by local DNA databases, while at the same time preserving law enforcement’s ability to wield this tool.
• Kreag, J. (2015). Letting Innocence Suffer: The Need for Defense Access to the Law Enforcement DNA Database. CARDOZO LAW REVIEW, 36(805), 55.
  More info

  Abstract: Law enforcement has gradually amassed a sizable DNA database that holds considerable promise for solving cold cases and identifying suspects. The Supreme Court has blessed this effort, allowing investigators to include profiles of arrestees as well as convicted persons in the database. At present, though, law enforcement has a near monopoly on use of the DNA database, leaving defendants at the whim of the law enforcement officials who control access to this tool. Legal scholars have alternatively praised and decried the database, but none has examined its prospects for proving defendants’ innocence post-conviction. This Article fills that void by identifying a limited due process right to defense-initiated DNA database searches. The Article argues that the database is a powerful truth-promoting tool that should be available to law enforcement and defendants alike. Because legislators have failed to promote the search for actual offenders through statutory rights of access, this Article presents the constitutional authority for defense-initiated searches to vindicate the rights of innocent defendants.
• Kreag, J. (2014).

  Letting Innocence Suffer: The Need for Defense Access to the Law Enforcement DNA Database

  . SSRN Electronic Journal. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2399969

Creative Productions

• Kreag, J. (2016. Murphy Woodhouse, Kidnapping Charges are Common, But Not Convictions. Nogales International. Nogales, AZ.
• Kreag, J. (2015. Interview. KVOA-TV. Tucson, AZ.
  More info

  In April 2015, I was interviewed by the Tucson NBC affiliate for a story on the County Attorney’s Brady List. The report aired on April 23, 2015.

Other Teaching Materials

• Kreag, J. (2019. Introduction to Criminal Law -- Online Course. College of Law.
  More info

  This is listed under the teaching section as well, but I wanted to list it here because the materials I produced for this course are similar to producing a casebook. I created this online course in fall 2018 and spring 2019. This included collecting and editing all of the materials and readings, producing several video lectures, and creating all of the problems, exams, and student exercises for the course. The College is re-using this material as the course is offered going forward, although I will not be teaching the course.

Others

• Kreag, J. (2019, April). KVOA Media Interview.
  More info

  I was interviewed several times by the local KVOA station about prosecutorial misconduct and the local Brady List.
• Kreag, J. (2019, March). Arizona Supreme Court Rule 32 Task Force.
  More info

  I recently completed my service on the Arizona Supreme Court's Rule 32 Task Force. I was the lone academic member of a team appointed by the Chief Justice of the Arizona Supreme Court tasked with rewriting and updating Arizona's rule of criminal procedure for post-conviction litigation. This was a two-year long commitment that resulted in a lengthy rule change petition that was recently accepted by the Supreme Court.