Message from discussion
use in court?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Received: by 10.151.68.13 with SMTP id v13mr927582ybk.22.1240930581971; Tue,
28 Apr 2009 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2009 07:56:21 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6a2ff9bf0904280445r237c8a6ci9cb291af098e1e6f@mail.gmail.com>
X-IP: 128.29.43.1
References: <6a2ff9bf0904280445r237c8a6ci9cb291af098e1e6f@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.1; .NET CLR
1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; InfoPath.2; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR
3.0.4506.2152; .NET CLR 3.5.30729),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: ICAP/1.0 128.29.43.20
Message-ID: <15cb6793-d265-43cd-98ed-de5bccfd5947@s38g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
Subject: Re: use in court?
From: mark <mkbr...@mitre.org>
To: rationale <rationale@googlegroups.com>
Sorry Tim, no pointers to judges.
A related question is =93Have lawyers used Rationale to prepare a
case?=94 If yes, then how is it used? If no, then why not? If
Rationale is useful for lawyers, you might think they=92d 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=92ve asked three attorney friends =96 educated at top law schools in th
U.S., two are litigators =96 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 =91no=92. 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=A0am, Tim van Gelder Austhink <t...@austhink.com> wrote:
> I was asked "Have any judges in Australia (or anywhere else) ever accepte=
d
> the use of *Rationale* by trial or appellate counsel to sketch an argumen=
t
> 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 Australiawww.austhinkconsulti=
ng.com
> Ph +61 3 9225 5215 ext 102 =A0Mob 0438 131 266 =A0Skype, LinkedIn timvang=
elder
> Blog timvangelder.com
|
