About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


9 IP Theory 1 (2019)

handle is hein.journals/ipthey9 and id is 1 raw text is: Internet (Re)Search by Judges, Jurors, and Lawyers H. ALBERT Liou & JASPER L. TRAN* ABSTRACT How can Internet research be used properly and reliably in law? This paper analyzes several key and very different issues affecting judges, jurors, and lawyers. With respect to judges, this paper discusses the rules of judicial conduct and how they guide the appropriate use of the Internetfor research; the standards for judicial notice; and whether judges can consider a third category of non-adversarially presented, non-judicially noticed factual evidence. With respect to jurors, this paper discusses causes of and deterrents to jurors conducting Internet research during trials; and the recourse available to parties who are adversely impacted by such behavior. With respect to lawyers, this paper discusses reliance on and potential pitfalls of using free Internet resources to conduct legal research; the dangers of rotten Internet links; and evidentiary considerations in citing to Internet evidence. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. Internet Research by Judges......................5...... ...................5 A. ABA Opinion on Internet Research by Judges ............................... 5 B. Judicial Notice: What Lawyers Should Know ................8..........8 C. Independent Factual Research to Confirm a Genuine Issue of Fact: A Third Category of Evidence?............................................................ 11 II. Internet Research by Jurors................................................ 13 A. Model Jury Instructions ................................................ 14 B. Recourse for Juror Misconduct .......................................... 16 1. Mistrials ......................................................... 17 2. Motion for a New Trial ........................................ ...... 18 III. Internet Research by Lawyers ........................................ ..... 18 A. Use of Free Internet Research Resources ................................... 19 B. Rotten Links ........................................................ 20 C. Factual Evidence from the Internet - Evidentiary Issues... .................... 22 IV. Conclusion .............................................................. 22 *Many thanks to Daneille C. Devlin for her editorial assistance. The views set forth herein are the personal views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Jones Day or its current/former clients.