|
|
|
|
|
|
by Kranar
1641 days ago
|
|
|
A judge crosses ethnical boundaries when they research questions of fact, they are not crossing ethical boundaries when they research questions of law. The scope of a law clerk's research is restricted to legal questions such as legislative matters, case law (as you point out), etc... It would not only be crossing ethical boundaries for a clerk to research a scientific finding and use that finding to advocate for or against a position, a judgement that is made on the basis of independent research is grounds for reversal by an appellate court. Here are some additional sources you can review on this matter: An article from an official provincial court's website about whether judges can use their own subject matter knowledge to make a decision: https://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/enews/enews-16-02-2016 The ABA's position on the issue, although it focuses mostly on using the Internet for research, it also touches on researching subject matter facts more generally: https://www.abajournal.com/images/main_images/FO_478_FINAL_1... A much more formal and comprehensive treatment of the subject, that goes into details about the difference between researching questions of law vs. questions of fact: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_201 Appellate court reversing a trial court's decision over the judge's independent research, even when that research was correct/valid: https://www.wiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/36113_ri20... |
|
|