Off The Record Or Not?

In November 2007, an article called “Off the Record” was published in a journal. It talked about how appellate courts are now allowing lawyers to add new information to the record that wasn’t included in the original trial. They are also bringing up new information themselves during appeals. This is different from how things used to be, and it’s important for lawyers to be aware of these changes. This article talks about how important facts are often missing from the legal records in court cases, which can make it hard for judges to make a fair decision. A group of lawyers wrote about this issue and made recommendations for changes to the rules. This article explains how this issue is being addressed in Florida courts and why it’s important for making fair decisions. The U.S. Supreme Court used a lot of information from the internet in a recent case about search warrants. Justice Sotomayor cited statistics and books to show how unfair the searches are for people of color. No one questioned the facts she mentioned. In a Supreme Court case, Justice Kennedy and Justice Alito disagreed about using extra-record materials in their opinions. Justice Kennedy said these materials weren’t relevant, but Justice Alito thought they were important and had been discussed before. This disagreement happened in a couple of different cases. Justice Alito said the Court should pay attention to certain facts even if they’re not in the official record, while Justice Kennedy and other justices disagreed. Some courts are using information from the internet, like Wikipedia, to make decisions in cases. But there’s a lot of disagreement about whether this is a good idea. Some judges think it’s important to stick to the information that was presented in the original trial, while others think it’s okay to look up extra facts online. In Florida, courts have used information from websites in their decisions, but there have been problems with the links not working or the information not being reliable. It’s a controversial issue that is still being debated. In a court case, a juror looked up information on Wikipedia about a crime the defendant was accused of, even though the judge told them not to. The juror later printed out the Wikipedia page, but the information had changed by then. This caused concerns about the reliability of Wikipedia in legal cases. Wikipedia was used as a source in a court case, but the court decided it wasn’t reliable because anyone can change the information on the website. The court said that using Wikipedia in this way is dangerous. Some other court cases have also said that using the internet for research during a trial can impact the jury’s decision. However, the court itself has used other private websites for research in the past, even though they may not be as reliable as government websites. Florida courts can consider extra-record facts, even if they are brought up for the first time on appeal. This is important because it helps the court have all the relevant information before making a decision. Courts can also take notice of their own records and information from other related cases. This helps the court make fair and consistent decisions and use judicial resources efficiently. Florida appellate courts have the power to consider new information that may affect the outcome of a case, even if it wasn’t brought up in the lower court. For example, if a party in a case refuses to tell the court if they have died, the court can find out on its own. In another case, the court looked at information from a previous appeal to help them make a decision about attorney fees. This shows that appellate courts can consider new information to make fair decisions. Courts need to make specific rules to deal with the huge amount of information available today. This includes how they use the internet and other sources for facts in their decisions. Some proposed changes include setting standards for using extra sources of facts, stating the facts the court is using, and attaching those sources to their opinions. It’s also important for parties to be able to challenge the use of certain facts and have a say before the court makes a decision based on those facts. Should a judge be allowed to do their own internet research for a case, even if it doesn’t end up in the final decision? It’s like a juror doing their own research during a trial, which they’re not supposed to do. It’s also like a judge asking for info about the case without telling the lawyers, which is against the rules. With the internet, this might happen more often. We think the rules should be changed so that parties are told if a judge does their own research, and they can respond to it before the final decision is made. Basically, sometimes in court cases, people can give the judges extra information that wasn’t mentioned in the original case. This can be important in making fair decisions. But there are rules about what kind of extra information can be used. Right now, these rules aren’t clear and can be different in different cases. This article is saying that we need to have clear rules about this and make sure everyone follows the same rules. These are references to legal cases and opinions from judges and lawyers. They talk about specific court decisions and how they were reached, as well as the use of outside sources in court cases. Some of the cases mentioned include Health Port Technologies, LLC v. Barbara Allen, and Fisher v. Univ. of Tex. at Austin. The references also discuss the use of Wikipedia and internet research by jurors during trials.

Source: https://www.floridabar.org/the-florida-bar-journal/off-the-record-or-not/