I was asked "Have any judges in Australia (or anywhere else) ever accepted
the use of *Rationale* by trial or appellate counsel to sketch an argument
about the evidence in a case?"

I know one judge has at least threatened to require Rationale
use<http://www.scribd.com/doc/309694/US-Department-of-Justice-Court-Proce...>but
do not recall hearing of any examples of this actually happening.

Any pointers?

- Tim v.G.

--
Austhink - bringing visual clarity to complex issues
Level 50, 120 Collins St Melbourne VIC 3000 Australia
www.austhinkconsulting.com
Ph +61 3 9225 5215 ext 102  Mob 0438 131 266  Skype, LinkedIn timvangelder
Blog timvangelder.com

A related question is “Have lawyers used Rationale to prepare a
case?”  If yes, then how is it used?  If no, then why not?  If
Rationale is useful for lawyers, you might think they’d use it.  On
the other hand, the same can be said of intelligence analysts.  A
question for this group: What obstacles have you found to using
Rationale outside the classroom?

I’ve asked three attorney friends – educated at top law schools in th
U.S., two are litigators – how they organize and make sense of their
cases/arguments.  Specifically, I asked whether they create any type
of argument hierarchy, i.e., hierarchy of supporting/refuting claims
and evidence.  They basically answered ‘no’.  They informally identify
major issues in the case in their heads or on paper.  They sometimes
organize evidence by type, or group evidence by some legal issue in
the case; often on paper, rarely using a computer.

[Note: someone please cross-post to argu...@yahoogroups.com]

On Apr 28, 7:45 am, Tim van Gelder Austhink <t...@austhink.com> wrote: