Janet Moore

View CV | SSRN

Janet Moore teaches Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure, Evidence, Civil Rights Litigation, and Capital Punishment.  She received J.D. and M.A. (Philosophy) degrees from Duke University and a M.A. in Divinity from the University of Chicago. At Duke, she served as Editor-in-Chief of Law & Contemporary Problems. After graduation, she clerked for the Honorable J. Dickson Phillips, Jr., on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. Professor Moore’s scholarship has been published or is forthcoming in journals such as Washington Law Review, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, and Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Her research focuses on empowering low-income people to reduce the scope and harmful impacts of the carceral state. Her work draws on critical theory, interdisciplinary community-based research partnerships, and long experience in both capital defense and justice reform advocacy.

Professor Moore co-convened the Indigent Defense Research Association, a national organization of practitioners, researchers and policy makers who use data to improve public defense. She has served or is serving as an invited expert for the American Bar Association’s Indigent Defense Advisory Group, the Indigent Defense Commissions of Michigan and Texas, the National Center for State Courts, and the Steering and Amicus Committees of the National Association for Public Defense. Professor Moore’s scholarship also led to her roles co-chairing a national task force on discovery reform, drafting a model criminal discovery reform bill, and serving as an advisor during the drafting and passage of the Michael Morton Act, which reformed criminal discovery procedures in Texas.

Awards include a 2020 University Faculty Excellence Award, 2018 University Cohen Award for Excellence in Teaching, 2018 University of Cincinnati College of Law Faculty Excellence Award,  two University of Cincinnati College of Law Goldman Prizes for Teaching Excellence (2012 and 2015), and a Junior Scholar Paper Competition Award sponsored by the Criminal Justice Section of the Association of American Law Schools. Grants include a University of Cincinnati Research Council award to support an investigation into quality communication in the public defense setting, and an Ohio Transformation Fund award to undertake community-based participatory research on redefining public safety and making it equally accessible to all.  The latter project received a 2018 Academic-Community Research Partnership Award from the University of Cincinnati Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training; based on her work on both projects, Professor Moore was chosen to serve as a Distinguished Mentor for the 2018-2019 faculty cohort of the University’s Transdisciplinary Research Leadership Program.

• JD, Duke University School of Law
  
• MA (Philosophy), Duke University
• MA, University of Chicago Divinity School
  

• Capital Punishment Seminar
• Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Evidence
• Civil Rights Litigation

• University of Cincinnati Faculty Excellence Award, 2020
• Distinguished Mentor, University of Cincinnati Transdisciplinary Research Leadership Program, 2018-2019
• Academic-Community Research Partnership Award, University of Cincinnati Center for Clinical and Translational Science and Training, 2018
• University of Cincinnati Cohen Award for Excellence in Teaching, 2018
• University of Cincinnati College of Law Faculty Excellence Award, 2018
• University of Cincinnati College of Law Goldman Prize for Excellence in Teaching, 2012 & 2015
• Association of American Law Schools Criminal Justice Section Junior Scholar Paper Competition Award, 2012
• Open Society Institute Senior Justice Advocacy Fellow, 2008-2009

• Janet Moore, Vicki L. Plano Clark, Lori A. Foote, & Jacinda K. Dariotis, Attorney-Client Communication in Public Defense: A Qualitative Examination, Criminal Justice Policy Review (2019), DOI: 10.1177/0887403419861672
• Co-editor (with Andrew L.B. Davies), Empirical Research on Public Defense: Advancing Theory, Practice, and Policy, Criminal Justice Policy Review (2019-2020) (symposium volume)
• Janet Moore & Andrew L.B. Davies, Introduction to Empirical Research on Public Defense: Advancing Theory, Practice, and Policy, Criminal Justice Policy Review (2019-2020)
• Reviving Escobedo, 50 Loyola University of Chicago Law Review 101 (2019) (invited symposium contribution)
• Co-editor (with Andrew L.B. Davies), Critical Issues and New Empirical Research in Public Defense, 14(2) Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law (2017)
• Andrew L.B. Davies & Janet Moore, Critical Issues and New Empirical Research in Public Defense: An Introduction, 14 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 337 (2017)
• Janet Moore & Andrew L.B. Davies, Knowing Defense, 14 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 345 (2017)
• The Antidemocratic Sixth Amendment, 91 Washington Law Review 1705 ( (2016)
• Unnoticed, Untapped, and Underappreciated: Clients’ Perceptions of their Public Defenders, 33 BEHAV. SCI. & L. 751 (2015) (peer-reviewed article; second author, with Christopher C. Campbell, Wesley Meier and Michael Gaffney)
• Make Them Hear You: Participatory Defense and the Struggle for Criminal Justice Reform, 78 ALBANY L. REV. 1281 (2015) (invited symposium article; lead author with Marla Sandys and Raj Jayadev)
• Democracy Enhancement in Criminal Law and Procedure, 2014 UTAH L. REV. 543 (manuscript selected for 2012 Junior Scholar Paper Competition Award by Criminal Justice Section, Association of American Law Schools)
• G Forces: Gideon v. Wainwright and Matthew Adler’s Move Beyond Cost-Benefit Analysis, 11 SEATTLE J. SOC. JUSTICE 1025 (2013) (invited symposium essay)
• Democracy and Criminal Discovery Reform After Connick and Garcetti, 77 BROOKLYN L. REV. 1329 (2012)
• Causes, Consequences, and Cures of Racial and Ethnic Disproportionality in Conviction and Incarceration Rates, 3 Freedom Center Journal 35 (2011)
• Covenant and Feminist Reconstructions of Subjectivity within Theories of Justice, 55 L. & Contemp. Probs. 159 (1992)

• Byrd v. United States, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-1371, merits brief (20 November 2017) and brief supporting petition for writ of certiorari (12 June 2017; certiorari granted 28 September 2017; reversed, 138 S. Ct. 1518 (2018))
• McWilliams v. Dunn, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-5294 (7 March 2017); relief ordered with citation to amicus brief in 5-4 majority opinion, 137 S. Ct. 1790, 1800 (2017)
• Christeson v. Roper, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-7730, brief supporting petition for writ of certiorari and application for stay of execution (30 January 2017) and merits brief, United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit Docket No. 16-02730 (19 August 2016)
• Perreault v. Stewart, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 17-1047 (26 February 2018)
• Stein v. United States, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 17-250 (15 September 2017)
• Sneed v. Burress, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-8047 (25 March 2017)
• Christensen v. United States, United States Supreme Court Docket No. 16-461 (7 November 2016)
• Grubbs v. Safir, United States District Court for the Southern District of New York Docket No. 1:92-cv-02132-GBD (17 April 2017)
• State v. Robinson, North Carolina Supreme Court Docket No. 411A94-6 (13 July 2018)
• Bridgeman v. District Attorney of Suffolk County, Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Docket No. SJC 12157 (24 October 2016)
• Public Defender v. Lakicevic, Third District Court of Appeal of Florida Docket No.  3D15-2084 (29 July 2016)

• Principal Investigator, $75,000 Ohio Transformation Fund Grant, From Reentry to No Entry:  Asset-Based Organizing for Research-Based Policy Reform. This community-partnered interdisciplinary project investigates the views of residents in highly-policed communities on their definitions of public safety while offering training on leadership development and data analysis to effect policy reform.
• Principal Investigator, $25,000 University of Cincinnati Research Council Grant, Reducing Mass Incarceration by Improving Public Defense: Defining and Assessing Quality Attorney-Client Communication. This mixed-method interdisciplinary pilot study investigates the views of public defense lawyers and people who need public defense representation regarding factors that promote and impede quality communication in that setting.