The criminal disclosure analog is an interesting one. The prosecutor has a duty to proactively disclose pertinent information to the defense.

An even better example, with more glaring differences with the IPCC, et al., are the civil discovery rules. Even in simple slip and fall cases, every single document and piece of information requested that is relevant or even may just “lead to the discovery of admissible evidence” must be produced. This is Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 26 if you’re interested in googling it.

For technical experts even in these simple civil cases, this includes every scrap of data used in its original file format, all code used to process it and all information reviewed by the expert. Moreover, long multi-day depositions can be taken of the expert going through step-by-step every single step he took and decision he made.

Not only are opposing experts’ methods rendered entirely replicable immediately, but often, multiple iterations of replications with variations are performed by both parties. And these occur many times even in very small cases.

For the billion+ dollar trade secret, antitrust and securities cases I’ve worked on, there are countless different experts, and the analysis by other experts themselves of literally terrabytes of data can run way up over $10 million. Moreover, depositions of a single expert can go on for over a week.

The global warming issue could potentially be a $100+ trillion question over the next several decades. That even less open discovery is taking place for it than a $50,000 slip and fall case is absolutely beyond shocking.

or even funnier, sign up in DROVES and then drop the class within the drop period.

Usually, but not in the creative fields like law enforcement or climate science. Why limit yourself with inconvenient facts??

In legal circles they refer to the concept of procedural fairness – I think Mike Nifong was absent from class that day.

And I’m not surprised by the link between Crowley and Nifong – why wouldn’t people who support the selective (and creative) use of “facts” to further their agendas stick together?

Duke Group of 88+

While ignoring the mountain of evidence that does exist, Crowley seemed particularly excised about evidence that does not. “Why,” he asked Herald-Sun readers, “are photographs available before and after the alleged event, but not during it?”

Crowley has the scientific expertise: I do not. But it’s my understanding that laws of space, time, and motion make it difficult to photograph an “alleged event.” If an “event” didn’t occur, it’s hard to see how anyone could photograph it.

Herald-Sun, The (Durham, NC) – November 12, 2006

Don’t be too quick to toss lacrosse case

I am surprised at the number of letter writers to your paper who, although they have no legal qualifications, seem to assume they have sufficient knowledge about the Duke lacrosse case to conclude that the case should be thrown out before it even goes to trial. I don’t know what happened that night with respect to those students and that woman, but I do know the following items about the case that would lead one to hesitate before throwing out the case. The Duke lacrosse players…

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it” …Omar Khayyam

Now, if Crowley were to disavow the hockey-stick, that would be a real sign of contrition