This is a purely educational website. Nothing here is legal advice or creates or implies an attorney-client relationship. If you have a specific legal issue, PLEASE talk to a lawyer who practices where you live—laws vary from place to place, and how they're applied varies from courthouse to courthouse. Your local county bar association can probably refer someone.
By using this site, you agree that you are awesome. Use of this site also constitutes acceptance of its
Terms of Service and Privacy Policies, which are known to medical science as a cure for insomnia.
It's best to keep all discussions in the comments. But if you really need to reach Nathan privately, go ahead and email him at n.e.burney@gmail.com. He won't mind.
THE ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO LAW and the PEEKING JUSTICE logo are pretty damn cool trademarks and should probably be registered one of these days.
© Nathaniel Burney. All rights reserved, though they really open up once you get to know them.
Holy crap, your publisher is going to hate you. I’m really loving the theme, though.
O-M-G…
That was friggin’ awesome!
…holy crap. Wow.
I’m really loving these flowcharts.
That was pretty good! A little hard to follow which line was which, but it all made sense in the end.
Also, the second-to-last image is broken. The one right after the sharks…
“And then the accused sinks all the way to the bottom and is fed to Squiddo, the Dark Lord of the Ocean, who devours those identified in court! So that’s why this ID should be disallowed, your honor!”
“…where did you get your law license?”
“Here, your honor, I have a note.”
So if I understand this chart, then if an I.D. procedure was suggestive, but didn’t affect the reliability of the I.D., then the I.D. comes in. If the I.D. is unreliable, then it doesn’t come in. So what is the point of the “suggestiveness” evaluation. Wouldn’t it be simpler to go straight to reliability?
I think it’s because suggestiveness gets weighed against reliability. A situation where there’s not a lot going on the reliability side might still come in if there’s nothing on the suggestiveness side, because even that light weight on the one side outweighs the other.
I see someone else reads XKCD.
So the field is stacked against throwing out eyewitness identification, so as long as there’s at least SOME reason to allow it, it is going to be allowed.
Sounds almost like what DC suggested last strip.
Seems like it would be that way with any evidence, though.
If there’s a reason to allow it, and no compelling reason to completely disallow it, it goes in.
And then it’s on Pi and DC to argue and convince the jury about what story to tell with the evidence they have!
I always love the flow charts!
Fingerpointin’ Falls, is that near Blamin’ Bluffs?
Ia F’tagn!