Articles Posted in David Badertscher

by

The Justice Department’s potential move to compel Google to sell its Chrome browser could significantly reshape the digital landscape, with direct and indirect consequences for the ability of law libraries to utilize computer-assisted legal research (CALR) to serve patrons effectively. This essay explores how such a divestiture might affect CALR resources, access, and functionality, while also considering implications for law libraries’ broader operational frameworks.

  1. Changes in Browser Compatibility with CALR Platforms

Most computer-assisted legal research tools, such as Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg Law, are optimized for popular web browsers, including Chrome. Google Chrome’s dominance in the browser market (approximately 60% as of recent statistics) has led developers to prioritize compatibility with Chrome over other browsers. If Chrome’s ownership changes, there is a possibility that its development priorities, security protocols, or support for certain legal research tools could shift. This could necessitate costly adjustments by CALR providers and law libraries.

Continue reading

by

David Badertscher Honored at the 14th Annual FellowshipLIFE Foundation Gala

David Badertscher, a resident of Fellowship Village in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, and former resident of Westfield, and publisher of the Criminal Law Library Blog was honored at the 14th Annual FellowshipLIFE Foundation Gala. The event took place at the Heidrich Hotel in New Brunswick, where David was recognized with the following citation:

David Badertscher, Fellowship Village Gala Honoree Citation:

Continue reading

by

From Congressional Budget Office (CBO):

CBO’s Budget Director, Philip Swagel, testified before the House Committee on the Budget, September 11, 2024.

Summary of Testimony:

Continue reading

by

From the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)*.

As reported by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pension Committee on June 18, 2024.

Summary:

Continue reading

by

As artificial intelligence, including generative AI, becomes increasingly common in litigation, judges across the United States are working to establish guidelines to prevent its misuse in court. Since Judge Brantley Starr of the Northern District of Texas issued the first standing order on AI in legal filings in 2023, more than 200 state and federal judges have followed suit, creating new standing orders, local rules, and pretrial guidance to address AI use and its potential pitfalls. Just last month, the newly established Texas Business Court included a caution on AI in its inaugural Local Rules.

This rapidly shifting landscape reflects judges’ efforts to address both the opportunities and challenges that AI presents. However, no uniform approach has yet emerged, with judges charting individual courses in their courtrooms and some broadening their orders to cover evidentiary concerns amid growing fears of deep fake evidence. While some judges are exploring ways to integrate AI responsibly, their primary focus remains on curbing its misuse. Practitioners should stay informed, as courts continue to adapt to this evolving frontier.

References:

Continue reading

by

The following is a discussion of the book Gitlow v. New York: Every Idea an Incitement. In his study, Marc Lendler opens up the world of American radicalism, traces the origin of the incorporation doctrine, which was addressed for the first time in this case, and the ebb and flow of Gitlow as a precedent through the Cold War and beyond.  Gitlow v. New York: Every Idea an Incitement is a book for our time.

In 1919 American Communist Party member Benjamin Gitlow was arrested for distributing a “Left Wing Manifesto,” a publication inspired by the Russian Revolution. He was charged with violating New York’s Criminal Anarchy Law of 1902, which outlawed the advocacy of any doctrine advocating for the violent overthrow of government. Gitlow argued that the law violated his right to free speech, but he was still convicted. He appealed  the decision; however, five years later the Supreme Court upheld his sentence by a vote of 7-2.

Throughout the legal proceedings, much attention was devoted to the “bad tendency” doctrine—the idea that speakers and writers were responsible for the probable effects of their words—which the Supreme Court explicitly endorsed in its decision. According to Justice Edward T. Sanford, “A state may punish utterances endangering the foundations of organized government and threatening its overthrow by unlawful means.”

Continue reading

by

In today’s digital world, scams come in many forms—some so convincing that even the savviest among us can fall victim. Scammers now use staged approaches, impersonating tech support agents, bank officials, and even loved ones to gain your trust. Understanding how these scams work and staying vigilant can save you from financial loss and emotional distress.” The information below is based on material compiled by the American Bankers Association and the Bank of America. It provides suggested examples that can be useful to help prevent us from being victims and is being shared as a service to all readers:

A word of caution: Don’t download software or provide remote access to anyone you don’t know. 

Imposter

Continue reading

by
Following the introduction of Chat GPT3.5 to the public on November 30, 2022, there have been growing concerns about how the emerging AI revolution can be utilized to reimagine and , if necessary, reinvent new technologies capable of preserving our democracy– as we enter another technological, economic, and political crossroads in our society. Sharing these concerns, I have been  searching the literature hoping to discover institutionally backed efforts dedicated to addressing them. Recently, I learned about the publishing by the Stanford Digital Lab of The Digital Papers: Artificial Intelligence in America, Volume 1 of a projected ongoing series. Learning of this publication, I immediately went to Amazon and ordered my own copy. The following is my Overview of this first volume:

In the late 18th century, the Federalist Papers emerged as a groundbreaking series of essays advocating for the ratification of the U.S. Constitution.  Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay—under the pseudonym “Publius”—articulated a vision for governance that reflected the challenges of their time: an unstable political landscape, shifting economic forces, and burgeoning democratic ideals. Fast forward to the 21st century, the world again finds itself at the intersection of disruptive change where the political, economic, and technological forces at play call for a similar intellectual effort to chart a way forward.

The Digitalist Papers: Artificial Intelligence and Democracy in America takes inspiration from the spirit of the Federalist Papers, yet it aims to address an even more complex landscape. The technological revolution now driven by artificial intelligence (AI) offers immense potential to reshape every aspect of human life—from how we communicate to how we govern ourselves. As Hamilton, Madison, and Jay once grappled with how to mold governance to fit the emerging United States, today’s thought leaders must confront the challenge of integrating AI into existing democratic institutions. This is the goal of the Digitalist Papers series: to explore the possibilities of AI’s impact on democracy and to consider how governance structures must evolve to preserve and enhance democratic values in this era of unprecedented technological change.

Continue reading

by

“On Friday, October 4, the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in Gutierrez v. Saenz, a case regarding death-sentenced Texas prisoner Ruben Gutierrez’s ability to sue the state for DNA testing in support of his innocence claim. The Court had issued a stay to Mr. Gutierrez on July 16, just twenty minutes before his scheduled execution. Mr. Gutierrez was convicted and sentenced to death in 1999 for the murder and robbery of an 85-year-old woman but has long maintained his innocence. Forensic evidence from inside the trailer where the killing occurred has never been tested for DNA, but the state has refused Mr. Gutierrez’s testing requests. The Court will now decide whether the Fifth Circuit was correct when it ruled that Mr. Gutierrez did not have standing to sue Texas over its refusal to give him access to DNA testing. The Court will likely hear Mr. Gutierrez’s case next spring.”  Leah Roemer. Death Penalty Information Center October 9, 2024.

In his October 7, 2024 posting in VERDICT. Amherst professor Austin Sarat argues that the Gutierrez case could expand the use of DNA evidence in criminal cases and the Court “should allow Gutierrez to challenge Texas’s restrictions on post-conviction DNA testing, asserting that such limitations in death penalty cases across the country hinder the pursuit of justice and should be reconsidered”.

Click here to read Professor Sarat’s complete posting in VERDTCT: Legal Analysis and Commentary from Justia.

 

by

Surgeon and bioethicist Charles E. Brinkley is a contributor to VERDICT a service of Justia. In his August14, 2024 VERDICT posting , Does Informed Consent Alone Mitigate Responsibility: Considering Patient Harm Related to Artificial Intelligence, Dr. Brinkley “discusses the ethical implications and potential harms of using artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare decision-making, particularly focusing on informed consent and physician responsibility. Dr. Binkley argues that patients should be informed when AI is used in their care, and that healthcare providers have a duty not only to inform patients of potential risks but also to mitigate those risks, emphasizing that the use of AI does not absolve physicians of their responsibilities to patients.”

Contact Information
ATTORNEY ADVERTISING

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Please do not include any confidential or sensitive information in a contact form, text message, or voicemail. The contact form sends information by non-encrypted email, which is not secure. Submitting a contact form, sending a text message, making a phone call, or leaving a voicemail does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Copyright © 2016 – 2024, David Badertscher
JUSTIA Law Firm Blog Design