Passage Discussion

[andrewgong01]

These two passages never really overlapped beyond the theme of judges doing their own research

The center contention seems to revolve around should judge's doing research be allowed ?

Passage A: Yes, trial court judges should and it gives two reasons. Namely, it provides higher accuracy in making judgements on what evidence to admit and the chances of outlandish research is reduced due to the structure of the trial

Passage B: No research for appellate court judges.
Why? First, there isn't any live testimony in appellate hearings to search for the truth. Second, doing your own research "usurps" the job of the trial court. Finally, appellate courts may substitute its own questionable research for evidence meant to be examined in trial courts. B actually does not have a stance on trial judges doing research based of line 30 and Q27.

However, I was confused as to since B has no stance on trial judges doing it, it seems like parts of its argument revolved around how in trial courts you are able to have judges do their own research because of the "greatest legal engine ever", cross examination.


I found B more confusing in terms of what it was trying to argue, especially with its concluding paragraph that to me did not make that much sense aside from how it is not the job of the appellate court to do it.

[ohthatpatrick]

Good synopsis.

Psg B seemed to me to be saying
"Appellate courts should NOT be doing their own research"
- They don't hear live testimony, so you wouldn't have a chance for lawyers on both sides to vet the research the judge has encountered.

- If an appellate court does its own research (that's never cross examined), it's essentially done its own fact-finding, which is supposed to be reserved to the trial court.

- Whether an appellate court gets some facts from a a book, the internet, or any other source ... if it wasn't "on-the-record" from the original trial, then it's going beyond the intended scope of an appeals court.