Minimum Curiosity

About this Episode

Should judges surf the web to scrutinize the truth of facts in front of them? With Amanda Frost, we discuss a recent case in which Judge Posner did just that. Some basic internet research cast serious doubt on a prison doctor’s medical opinion suggesting a prisoner did not need Zantac before meals to control a serious esophageal condition. While the websites Posner visited and cited did not control the outcome, they supported his conclusion that the evidence in the district court was insufficient to throw out the prisoner’s case.

This show’s links:

• Amanda Frost’s faculty profile and writing
• Rowe v. Gibson
• Coleen Barger, On the Internet Nobody Knows You’re a Judge
• Alli Orr Larsen, The Trouble with Amicus Facts; see also Alli Orr Larsen, Factual Precedents, which Christian must have had rolling around in his head somewhere
• Alli Orr Larsen on the Colbert Report discussing amicus briefs and factfinding
• Amanda Frost, The Limits of Advocacy
• Brianne Gorod, The Adversarial Myth: Appellate Court Extra-Record Factfinding
• Zantac’s Comparison of OTC Heartburn Treatment Options
• Mitchell v. JCG Industries (dissent and concurrence in the denial of a rehearing and Posner’s defense of the court’s staff’s trying on protective gear to gauge the plausibility of the claim that it took more than fifteen minutes)