Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 39:53 — 36.5MB) | Embed
Fed Ct Website Updates, Racial Bias and the Death Penalty, Privatizing Access to Justice, Supreme Ct Haikus and More.
Introduction
- Scott Kuhagen joins us once again for this episode.
- Josh reminds us of the importance of civility in the practice of law.
- Laura mocks law prom. Scott points out Barristers’ Ball is actually a pretty good time
In the News
- The many very ugly websites of the federal district courts will soon, hopefully, improve, according to a memo from the Committee on the Judicial Branch to all the chief judges.
- In tech-but-not-law news: The New York Times now has e-book-only bestseller lists.
- North Carolina is letting death row inmates challenge their sentences on claims of racial bias, thanks to a controversial law. Laura’s 1L crim law prof, David Baldus, challenged death sentences all the way to the Supreme Court back in McCleskey v. Kemp.
You’re Doing it Wrong
- How realistic is it to expect jurors to stay off of the Internet? A Pennsylvania juror could face criminal contempt charges for extensive online research about the victim’s injuries in capital murder case.
- A Texas court rejects lawsuit when plaintiff failed to file through Lexis’ proprietary filing system. Nothing like a big step backwards in freer access to justice.
People Smarter Than Us
- Scott gives props to the WeJudicate project, a kickstarter-funded enterprise of “citizen coders serving justice.”
- Josh, Scott and Laura
Like the Supreme Court haikus
Online at this site
Keep Listening
- If you like what you hear, please give us a positive review on iTunes, leave your comments and, of course, subscribe to the podcast.
- Send questions, ideas, comments, complaints, and corrections by email to podcast /at/ legalgeekery /dot/ com or via Twitter (@legalgeekery, @lbergus, or @skuhagen). Many thanks to our listening geeks!
Incoming search terms:
- legal advice podcasts
No related posts.
{ 8 comments… read them below or add one }
Thank you for the props
Though appearance is dreadful
Content is OK
SupremeCourtHaiku.com
Buckley v. Valeo:
Per Curiam, Held:
Spending is speech. But not one
Justice signed his name.
Scott, Laura, and Josh, thanks for the WeJudicate shout out. Josh, you’re right the video is too slow. I need to work on that. I usually do a better job. ;)
By way of background, I’m a 3L, a former physics teacher, and a software developer. The idea behind WeJudicate took hold last summer while I was working on the Navajo Nation providing legal aid. The prior summer, I had interned with the Navy JAG in DC. Both experiences exposed me to a digital divide in the legal community. Sure, they both had access to electronic research tools like West & Lexis, but neither the Military or the Navajo court systems had electronic filing, and as I researched the state of electronic case management, I found that many legal aid organizations couldn’t even afford rudimentary systems for screening out conflicts, tracking hours, and managing active cases. In short, I found myself conducting a number of tasks and thinking, “there has to be a better way to do this.” I knew that an electronic filing system existed for the federal courts (PACER), and I knew that large law firms made use of sophisticated case management systems. So I started to ask why those tools weren’t available to large swaths of the legal community. In the end, it pretty much came down to money, and given the nature of legal services as a public good, it seemed like a market failure in need of a solution. Open source seemed a good fit, and I struck upon the idea of building two independent but complementary systems, an e-filing system for use by the courts and a case management system for use by practitioners. In addition to being open source, they’d also be open API with the idea being that they could help foster the growth of new tools for practitioners and the courts.
Anywho, that’s a tad long for a comment. Your listeners can learn more about the project on its Kickstarter page and more about me and my background at DavidColarusso.com. You can find my contact info on my site. Thanks agin for the mention.
I realized after posting my comment that I swapped the title and href parameters in my first link making it “point” less. I’ll follow up with a properly formated comment after this. Hopefully, you can find it in your hearts to delete this and my first post. My apologies. Thanks again for the mention.
Scott, Laura, and Josh, thanks for the WeJudicate shout out. Josh, you’re right the video is too slow. I need to work on that. I usually do a better job. ;)
By way of background, I’m a 3L, a former physics teacher, and a software developer. The idea behind WeJudicate took hold last summer while I was working on the Navajo Nation providing legal aid. The prior summer, I had interned with the Navy JAG in DC. Both experiences exposed me to a digital divide in the legal community. Sure, they both had access to electronic research tools like West & Lexis, but neither the Military or the Navajo court systems had electronic filing, and as I researched the state of electronic case management, I found that many legal aid organizations couldn’t even afford rudimentary systems for screening out conflicts, tracking hours, and managing active cases. In short, I found myself conducting a number of tasks and thinking, “there has to be a better way to do this.” I knew that an electronic filing system existed for the federal courts (PACER), and I knew that large law firms made use of sophisticated case management systems. So I started to ask why those tools weren’t available to large swaths of the legal community. In the end, it pretty much came down to money, and given the nature of legal services as a public good, it seemed like a market failure in need of a solution. Open source seemed a good fit, and I struck upon the idea of building two independent but complementary systems, an e-filing system for use by the courts and a case management system for use by practitioners. In addition to being open source, they’d also be open API with the idea being that they could help foster the growth of new tools for practitioners and the courts.
Anywho, that’s a tad long for a comment. Your listeners can learn more about the project on its Kickstarter page and more about me and my background at DavidColarusso.com. You can find my contact info on my site. Thanks agin for the mention.
@David Colarusso: No worries, David. I fixed it for you.
Thanks for the follow-up.
@David Colarusso, Ah, but I see that you did indeed fix it and my spam filters ate it. Oops.
@Joshua Auriemma, Thanks. Oh, those wonderful spam filters. Feel free to delete this extraneous pre-duplicate post thread. Although, I did get a nice pun in my link comment. ;)
{ 1 trackback }