01
Factual background & dispute
- The presentence investigation report included results from a COMPAS risk and needs assessment.
- The defendant challenged the proprietary model's lack of transparency and argued that its use of gender data violated due process.
- The sentencing court also considered independent factors, including the severity of the offense, prior criminal history, and supervision records.
02
Core issues & judicial focus
- Whether the inability to review the proprietary algorithm violates due process rights
- Whether risk scores may be used in individualized sentencing
- What limitations must be imposed when risk assessment models consider factors such as gender
03
Judicial finding & holding
- The state supreme court affirmed the lower court's decision.
- The court permitted judges to consult COMPAS scores subject to explicit limitations and cautionary instructions.
- Risk scores cannot determine sentence severity or whether incarceration is warranted, and courts must evaluate other independent factors.
04
Practical risk implications
01High-impact algorithmic scores must be accompanied by usage limitations, known error rates, target population parameters, and update histories.
02Final decision-makers should document the actual role of algorithmic scores in their determinations.
03Vendor trade secret claims increase the burden on authorities to provide explanations, facilitate cross-examination, and safeguard procedural rights.