[retcon]

Hang on, doesn't deliberate manipulation of the consumption of counterfactual legal precedent by a sitting judiciary (withholding with measurable effect the countering case references is the study method) only result in a spate of mistrials?

Ed. legal precedent replaced sources for clarity of this significance

[zucker42]

Forget the internet for a second and imagine there was a collection of cases in a book compiled by a group of law professors and legal students, summarized for easy reference. That book omits some cases that are relevant to the subject of the book for one reason or another. A judge/clerk reads that book to gain insight to some of the cases in a particular area. Is that grounds for a mistrial? Clearly not, IMO.

This is just that with a different medium.

[dhosek]

“consumption of counterfactual legal precedent”

I think you misread the article (or I’m misreading you). There were no counterfactual legal precedents published. They took a set of cases and for half of them published Wikipedia articles on them for half, did not publish them (the non-publication was the counterfactual case, not the contents of the articles).

[jacobolus]

A mistrial because the judge did a google search and found the article a hired law student wrote carefully and accurately and added to a publicly available source?