Supreme Court justices Google just like the rest of us, declares The Washington Post’s Robert Barnes in this columntoday. Is that a good thing or bad a thing?
Mr. Barnes cites a study bylaw professor Allison Orr Larsen, who looked at 15 years’ worth of Supreme Court decisions and found more than 100 examples of asserted facts from authorities never mentioned in any of the legal briefs.
In the 120 most-publicized cases between 2000 and 2010, nearly 60% included facts researched in-house. Virtually all of the justices were guilty of stepping outside briefs to grab information in support of their arguments.
Professor Larsen doesn’t claim that it has changed the outcome of a case, at least not yet.
Information that is vetted and challenged by lawyers on both sides is less susceptible to “the possibility of mistake, unfairness to the parties, and judicial enshrinement of biased data which can now be quickly posted to the world by anyone without cost,” says Ms. Larsen, a professor at William & Mary Law School.
In other words, the practice undermines the adversarial process.
Thoughts, Lbers?
http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/07/09/supreme-court-justices-google-but-should-they/
==================
http://www.ethemis.gr/epitrepete-na-chrisimopioun-i-dikastes-to-google-gia-to-schimatismo-dikanikis-pepithisis/
Στα πλαίσια των άρθρων 336 ΚΠολΔ και 177 ΚΠΔ,γιατί όχι?Ούτως η άλλως όλο και περισσότεροι αρχίζουμε να χρησιμοποιούμε τις διάφορες μηχανές αναζήτησης στο διαδίκτυο γιά θέματα που αφορούν κάποια υπόθεση.
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφήΣε αυτοψία που διενεργήθηκε, έγινε χρήση αεροφωτογραφιών από το google earth. Μάλιστα φαινόταν η μεταβολή του ακινήτου με την επιλογή του ιστορικού
ΑπάντησηΔιαγραφή