The Tube court

Readability

The Tube court

The NY Times note another change is how things are done:

The Supreme Court is enter­ing the YouTube era.

The first cita­tion in a peti­tion filed with the court last month, for instance, was not to an affi­davit or a legal prece­dent but rather to a YouTube video link. The video shows what is either appalling police bru­tal­ity or a mea­sured response to an arrested man’s intran­si­gence — you be the judge.

Such evi­dence vérité has the poten­tial to unset­tle the way appel­late judges do their work, accord­ing to a new study in The Har­vard Law Review. If Supreme Court jus­tices can see for them­selves what hap­pened in a case, the study sug­gests, they may be less inclined to defer to the fac­tual find­ings of jurors and to the con­clu­sions of lower-​court judges.

Like every other change of this nature, when it first hap­pens it is inter­est­ing, the time will come with it is the norm, but its worth noting.

The NY Times note another change is how things are done:

The Supreme Court is entering the YouTube era.

The first citation in a petition filed with the court last month, for instance, was not to an affidavit or a legal precedent but rather to a YouTube video link. The video shows what is either appalling police brutality or a measured response to an arrested man’s intransigence — you be the judge.

Such evidence vérité has the potential to unsettle the way appellate judges do their work, according to a new study in The Harvard Law Review. If Supreme Court justices can see for themselves what happened in a case, the study suggests, they may be less inclined to defer to the factual findings of jurors and to the conclusions of lower-court judges.

Like every other change of this nature, when it first happens it is interesting, the time will come with it is the norm, but its worth noting.