A 'Body of Precedent Written on the Wind?'. Wiki Courts, 'Link Rot', and Independent Judicial Internet Research

AuthorKaren Eltis
Pages25-64
25
CHAPTER 2
A “Body of Precedent Written on the Wind?”1
Wiki Courts, “Link Rot,” and Independent Judicial
Internet Research
A. COMPETENCE AND ACCESS TO TECHNOLOGY
Competence is a vital ethical principle,2 thus rendering judicial comfort
with basic precepts of technology essential in t his web-dependent society.3
According to the Canadian Judicial Cou ncil’s Ethical Principles for Judges,
“Judges should take reasonable steps to maintain and enhance the know-
ledge, skills and persona l qualities necessary for judicial oce.”4 Likewise,
the ABA Model Codeof Judicial Conduct rules provide that “[a] judge shall
1 Judicial Conference of the United State s.
2 Jura novit curia — la cour connaît le droit (“the cou rt knows the law,” some-
times tran slated as “the court knows the lay”). For an i n-depth discussion, see
Douglas Brooker, “Va Savoir! — e Adage ‘Jura Novit Curia’ in Contemporary
France” bepress Legal Se ries, Paper 845 (30 October 2005), online: http://law.
bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4295&context=expresso. Of course,
as Mashaw cautions: “Many arg uments about judicial competence are vague
about their normative foundat ions because ‘competence’ can convey a concern
for either ‘authority’ or ‘capacity.’ Because ‘capacity’ i s also a functionalis t
argument for alloc ating ‘authority,’ this conceptual confu sion seems almost
inherent in the interpret ive debate.” See Jerry Mashaw, “Between Facts and
Norms: Agency Statutory Inter pretation” (2005) 55 University of Toronto Law
Journal 497 at 502.
3 See David H Tennant & Laurie M Seal, “Judicia l Ethics and the Internet: May
Judges Search the Internet i n Evaluating and Deciding a Cas e?” (2005) 16:2
e Professional Lawy er, online: w ww.abanet.org/judicia lethics/resources/
TPL_jethics_internet.pdf.
4 Canadian Judicia l Council, Ethical Principles for Judges (Ottawa: Canadian
Judicial Cou ncil, 1998) Principle 4(2): Diligence .
Courts , Litigants, and the Digi tal Age26
perform judicial and administrative duties competently and diligently,”5
noting that “[c]ompetence in the performance of judicial duties requires
the legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness, and preparation reasonably ne-
cessary to perform a judge’s responsibilities of judicial oce.”6 In eect, a
court is presumed to know the law and expected to be cognizant of and
sensitive to social context.7 In today’s reality, that includes oen-intricate
concepts that the “experts” themselves have yet to address, let alone resolve.
As Elizabeth ornburg correc tly notes in her enlightening article on
this point:
[J]udges in the twenty-rst century nd themselves in a world where
litigation — both civi l and criminal — involves a vast ar ray of complex
and technical fac tual disputes. ese lawsuits , in turn, may cause judges
to seek a greater level of expert ise in order to deal competently with the
evidence that will be relevant to those disputes . . . . Courts are asked
to decide questions such as: whether medici ne can eliminate the risk of
dying in severe pain; whether psychologists can predict future danger-
ousness; whether punishments deter crime; whether building projects
threaten wildlife; and whether exposure to various chemicals creates a
risk of public injuries or death. A n appellate court, ordinarily bou nd by
a case’s trial court record, might want information outside the record
because an issue is very dicult, or because the record is inadequate,
especially if one party had far superior resources leading to a lopsided
presentation, or because technica l knowledge has evolved since the time
of trial .
At the same time, advances in communication technology have
brought the world’s library to the courthouse, requiring no onerous
trips across town or index sea rches but only the click of a mouse. When
judges feel the need for additional information, the easy availability of
the Internet is a powerful temptation.8 is combination of felt need
and ready access has turned a once-marginal concern into a dilemma
5 American Bar Associat ion, ABAModel Code of Judicial Conduct, 2011 ed (Chi-
cago: American Ba r Association, Center for Professional Responsibil ity, 2010)
Rule 2.5(A) [ABA Model C ode].
6 Ibid, comments to Rule 2.5.
7 “Lawyers and academics ca n help the judiciary along this pat h with their legal
arguments and w ritings, but in the end the judges have to make t he decisions.
ey must be enlightened dec isions, aware of the social fabric of our ti me, with
our nger on the pulse of huma nity.” See Constance R Glube, former chief
justice of Nova Scotia, i n her essay “e Role of the Judge” in Rosalie Abella &
Melvin Rothma n, eds, Justice beyond Orwell (Montréal: Yvon Blais, 1985) at 486.
8 Take, for example, the (socia l security benets denial) c ase of Purvis v Commis-
sioner of Social Sec urity, 2011 US Dist LEXIS 18175 (DNJ), where the presiding
Chapter 2: A “Body of Precedent Writ ten on the Wind?” 27
that aects courts and litigants daily. e problem of judicial research
has always been wit h us, lurking in the margi ns, and yet we do not have
a workable framework for discerning when it is and is not permissible.
We can no longer comprehensively fail to engage this question, because
it is now taking on a central importance to proper judicial decision-
making in a n increasing number of cases.9
Indeed, although directly salient to inmates’ constitutionally pro-
tected right to a full answer and defence — rather than to judges’ own
preparedness — a recent Canadian decision proclaiming Internet legal
research central to the above-said right is telling. Reecting the essential
nature and enhanced stature of Internet research to mounting a defence,
but arguably telling far more broadly, the judge in that case opined that he
was “hard pressed” to see how one can mount an eect ive defence without
the Internet generally and the CanLII website (housing Canadian juris-
prudence), in particular.10
Although the exact degree of requisite expertise remains to be deter-
mined, judges for certain must possess some understanding of the funda-
mental notions of science and technology in order to grasp the related issues
permeating cases and to adequately lter and assess evidence.11 Further,
as online communication increasingly forms the subject of legal dispute,
judges must develop the aptitude for understanding both (fundamental)
judge visited the plai nti’s Facebook page on her own initiative to d iscover
what appeared to be the plai nti smoking. Said the judge:
[A]lthough the Court remands t he ALJ’s decision for a more detailed
nding, it notes that i n the course of its own research, it discovered one
prole picture on what is belie ved to be Plainti’s Facebook page where she
appears to be smoking. P role Pictures by eresa Purv is, Facebook [link
omitted] (last visite d Feb. 16, 2011). If accurately depicted , Plainti’s cred-
ibility is justi ably suspect.
9 Elizabet h G ornburg, “e Curious Appellate Judge: Eth ical Limits on Inde-
pendent Research” (2008) 28:1 Litigation Review 131 (Lex is).
10R v Biever, 2015 A BQB 301 at pa ras 92 and 126. See also Sar ah Burton, “Life,
Liberty, and the R ight to CanLII: Legal Resea rch behind Bars” (3 June 2015),
ABlawg.ca (blog), onli ne: http://ablawg.ca/2015/06/03/life -liberty-and-th e-
right-to-canlii-legal-research-behind-bars.
11Se e, for example, Scalia J’s mischarac terization of HBO as “cable” in American
Broadcasting Compani es, Inc v Aereo, Inc,573 US ___ (2014), discussed in
Brett LoGiurato, “Justice Sc alia Did Not Know You Can’t Get HBO for Free”
Business Inside r (22 April 2014), online: www.businessi nsider.com/scalia-hbo-
aereo-case-supreme-court-2014-4.

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT