Purpose: The resource was written to inform the general public that as a society we should do more to adapt fully, both institutionally and individually, to the process currently being made in communication and advocacy through computer technology in the courtroom.
Authority: The article is published by the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology. The author is Fred Galves who is a professor of law at McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific Sacramento California. He also graduated from Harvard Law school.
Accuracy: The information of the article is correct and free from errors. The article alone references a number of credible sources that I know as credible.
Timeliness: The article is from 2000, but it provides the right context for my research needs.
Coverage: The article covers the topic in depth, with a lot of supporting data. From pages 165-300, all about the topic of computer generated exhibits in a courtroom. The article first has an overview of computer-generated exhibits, then discusses computer generated exhibits and admissibility concerns, then amending the rules to encourage computer generated exhibit use, the need for comprehensive legal education, and finally the cost consideration, economic disparity, and strategic concerns.
Objectivity: The information is persuasive but does show multiple viewpoints. The article tells the reader why computer generated exhibits should be used in the courtroom but provides limitations as well. For example, the expense, the economic inequities, concerns, etc. However, the article then presents solutions to those problems.
Work cited:
Galves, F. (2000, November/December). WHERE THE NOT-So-WILD THINGS ARE:* COMPUTERS IN THE COURTROOM, THE FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE, AND THE NEED FORINSTITUTIONAL REFORM AND MORE JUDICIAL ACCEPTANCE. Harvard Journal of Law & Technology, 13(2), 165-300. doi:10.1107/s0108270113015370/sk34882csup5.hkl
No comments:
Post a Comment