A Service from the ABA Criminal Justice Section, http://www.abanet.org/crimjust
VAN DE KAMP, JOHN, ET AL. v. GOLDSTEIN, THOMAS L. (No. 07-854.)
AP reporting: The Court threw out a lawsuit by a Los Angeles man wrongfully convicted of murder and gave district attorneys a broad shield against being sued even if their management mistakes send an innocent person to prison.
James R. Sahlem, Principal Law Librarian at the New York Supreme Court Library at Bullafo, notes in his publication, NYCRR/Sections Affected , a significant change in the Rules of Professional Conduct (22 NYCRR 1200), NYR 1-28-09 at p 99.
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
January 29, 2009
1. People v. Rodriguez, 5115, 810/05, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2009 NY Slip Op 434; 2009 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 426, January 27, 2009, Decided, January 27, 2009, Entered, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
Below are links to some of the recent documents, January 21, 22 and 26, 2009 :
Executive Order: Presidential Records, Released by White House on 1-21-09
Memorandum: Freedom of Information Act ( FOIA ) Released by White House on 1-21-09
“Judge Uses Vulgar Language As She is Charged”, an article by Edmund H. Mahoney and Jon Lender, published in the January 27, 2009 Hartford Courant, reports that a Connecticut Superior Court judge is accused of arguing with a police officer and calling him a “Negro trooper”. The folllowing links to both the article and a “booking video”:
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-cofield0127.artjan27,0,2287060.story
In a January 28, 2009 New York Times article, “Hang Him Up? The Bad Judge and His Image”, Benjamin Weiser describes a debate that has arisen in a New York Courthouse over whether the portrait of a disgraced judge should continue to be displayed or thrown in a closet.
To read the story click on the link below to the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/28/nyregion/28portrait.html?partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
The ABA Criminal Justice Section Juvenile Justice Committee and The Standing Committee on Legal Aid and Indigent Defendants and The Council on Racial & Ethnic Justice Present;
The New Paradigm of Juvenile Justice
Complementary CLE
The above titled January 27, 2009 article by John Markoff, published in the New York Times is relevant because it discusses digitization, preservation and authentication of records (and by extension information) in terms of continuously preserving these qualities in an authentic state as the underlying technology constantly changes or “shifts” over time, thus taking into account and emphasizing the importance of both the initial authentication of information in accordance with accepted polices and practices and the urgency of maintaining that authenticity over time. In terms of this discussion the question for law librarians and others throughout the legal profession working with digital legal information is how to best provide assurance that primary and other legal information officially authenticated at a given time can be safely perceived as remaining reliably authentic over a much longer period of time in the midst of these constant shifts? Since John Markoff’s article may help us at least clarify these issues I wanted to share it with you.
David Badertscher
Here are some excerpts:
In case you missed it, the results from the 2008 version of Marshall Breeding’s Library Automation Survey are available at http://www.librarytechnology.org/perceptions2008.pl. This Survey is international in scope. There were 1,450 responses.
Update from the Lexis Alert Service,
January 21 & 26, 2009
1. People v. Lofton, 4649, 2903/06, SUPREME COURT OF NEW YORK, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT, 2008 NY Slip Op 9261; 56 A.D.3d 371; 2008 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8795, November 25, 2008, Decided, THE LEXIS PAGINATION OF THIS DOCUMENT IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE PENDING RELEASE OF THE FINAL PUBLISHED VERSION., THIS OPINION IS UNCORRECTED AND SUBJECT TO REVISION BEFORE PUBLICATION IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS.
