Can you do structured field queries?
Like, all cases where defendant is X. And maybe where the cause is Y
- that the evidence that defendant fired the murder weapon during the sandwich
- bologna sandwich found at the crime scene
- presence in sandwich the morning of the murder
- ways in which they could murder her mother. these included the sandwich ... sandwich incident could not be used
- crime of capital murder. as a habitual offender, sentenced to life ... to the "bologna sandwich" constituted reversible error
- coroner testified that victim had eaten a fish sandwich within 2 hours ... prior to his death
- it was not first degree murder, and the court should have ... sandwich. he paid for the sandwich, but did not pay for the coffee
- convicted of malice murder and possession of a ... sandwich
- she was shot and that she had some change in one hand and a sandwich in the other ... sandwich in your hand kind of slow your progress down in getting a gun out of your ... sandwichAlso would be a very strange to apply this so-called “right” when court records are essential to keeping organs of government accountable.
The names and so on are always censored anyhow, in some cases it's a bit obvious who did things though. If it's a lawsuit about a company and let's say it sells books online, maybe you can tell by 1-2 things what company it is. But for people, it's not so straight forward.
This is actually starting to become a problem because computers are getting too good at their job.
Let's say a news site reports on a criminal trial of a John Smith, censored as John S. If John Smith was in any way famous before the trial and had an article written about him, that article is somewhat likely to appear in the "you may also like" sidebar when you're reading the censored one. Some news sites try to suppress this, but I'm not sure they're legally required to do so.
They're not searchable, they're often not even digitized, and the media is generally not allowed to report the full names of those accused.
Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. If a background check is required, the person of interest has to specifically request an official document from the government proving they haven't been convicted for any crimes, or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job, I have had to do this.
Now there's also a sex offenders registry, which authorized institutions can query directly, although they have to get consent first.
A recent law review article on the prospects of this so-called "right" under US law is https://mttlr.org/2020/02/why-the-right-to-be-forgotten-wont..., citing https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/469/ ("It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to criminalize releasing the name of a rape victim or to permit a private right of action against the press for doing so."), and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12.... See also https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13....
I searched the DB but it seems i couldnt get the actual docket unless i paid for a PACER sub. Is that right ? This is only an index, but to actually see the court docs, you have to pay someone ?
Otherwise, courtlistener has PACER docs that us users exfiltrate from PACER and upload for free.
I'm a Jr.
catlover76•15h ago
TZubiri•14h ago
comex•12h ago
kopecs•12h ago
ETA: which is of course mentioned on the thread root. But RECAP users would be paying, in that case.
qingcharles•6h ago