Video evidence and summary judgment: The procedure of Scott v. Harris

Judicature

Volumn 91, Issue 4, 2008, Pages 180-184

  Wasserman, Howard M ^a,b  

^a SAINT LOUIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 41849106124     PISSN: 00225800     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (62)

1. 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007).
2. Jack H. Friedenthal, Cases on Summary Judgment: Has There Been a Material Change in Standards?, 63 NOTRE DAME L. REV. 770, 785 (1986);
3. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 250 (1986);
4. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
5. Patricia M. Wald, Summary Judgment at Sixty, 76 TEX. L. REV. 1797, 1917 (1998).
6. See Stephen B. Burbank, Vanishing Trials and Summary Judgment in Federal Civil Cases: Drifting Toward Bethlehem or Gomorrah?, 1 J. EMPIRICAL L. STUD. 591, 592-93,616 (2004) ;
7. Arthur R. Miller, The Pretrial Rush to Judgment: Are the -Litigation Explosion, " "Liability Crisis, " and Efficiency Cliches Eroding Our Day in Court and Jury Trial Commitments, 78 N.Y.U. L. REV. 982, 1048-49 (2003);
8. Wald, supra n. 3, at 1915.
9. See Federal Judicial Center, Estimates of Summary Judgment Activity in Fiscal Year 2006 (on file with author).
10. See Miller, supra n. 4, at 1050.
11. Burbank, supra n. 4, at 618;
12. Martin H. Redish, Summary Judgment and the Vanishing Trial: Implications of the Litigation Matrix, 57 STAN. L. REV, 1329, 1333 (2005).
13. Jessica M. Silbey, Filmmaking in the Precinct House and the Genre of Documentary Film, 29 COLUM. J. L. & AKTS, 107, 116 (2005);
14. Rie Simmons, Why 2007 is Not Like 1984: A Broader Perspective on Technology's Effect on Privacy and Fourth Amendment Jurisprudence? 97 J. CRIM. & CRIMINOLOGY 531, 566 (2007).
15. Jessica M. Silbey, Judges as Film Critics: New Approaches to Filmic Evidence, 37 U. MICH. J. L. REF. 493, 507 (2004) (emphasis in original).
16. Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1779 (2007);
17. Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1267-68 (11th Cir. 2007).
18. Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F. 3d 1260 (11th Cir. 2007);
19. Andrew T. George, Rediscovering Dangerousness: The Expanded Scope of Reasonable Deadly Force after Scott v. Harris, 93 VA. L. REV. IN BRIEF 129 (2007), http://www.virginialawreview.org/inbrief/ 2007/07/09/george.pdf.
20. Scott, 127 S. Ct. at 1773.
21. Id. at 1774-76.
22. Miller, supra n. 4, at 1067;
23. Redish, supra n. 7, at 1355.
24. The Court took the unprecedented step of "allow [ing] the video to speak for itself by posting it on the Supreme Court's web site. Scott, 127 S. Ct. at 1775 n.5; http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/video/ scott_v_harris.rmvb. Many hailed this as indicating that the justices were becoming more in-tune with modern technology and, in effect, modern procedure.
25. See http://www.abovethelaw.com/2007/04/ video_clips_not_just_for_onlin.php.
26. Scott, 127 S. Ct. at 1775-76.
27. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 249.
28. Richard L. Marcus, Completing Equity's Conquest ? Reflections on the Future of Trial Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 50 U. PITT. L. REV. 725, 772 (1989).
29. See Miller, supra n. 4, at 1067
30. Dan M. Kahan, David A. Hoffman, and Donald Braman, Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? An Empirical (and Normative) Assessment of Scott v. Harris, available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id= 1081227.
31. Silbey, Filmmaking, supra n. 8, at 111, 127;
32. Silbey, Critics, supra n. 9, at 508.
33. Silbey, Critics, supra n. 9, at 550.
34. Id. at 519.
35. Silbey, Critics, supra n. 9, at 516.
36. Scott, 127 S. Ct. at 1775 n.5.
37. Silbey, Filmmaking, supra n. 8, at 111 ;
38. Silbey, Critics, supra n. 9, at 508-09.
39. Silbey, Critics, supra n. 9, at 519.
40. Silbey, Filmmaking, supra n. 8, at 124.
41. Silbey, Critics, supra n. 9, at 519.
42. Id.
43. Scott, 127 S. Ct. at 1783 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
44. Compare id. at 1775
45. with id. at 1782 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
46. Compare id. at 1775
47. with id. at 1783 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
48. Kahan, et al., supra n. 20.
49. Scott, 127 S. Ct. at 1776.
50. Id. at 1782 (Stevens J., dissenting).
51. Id. at 1781, 1782 (Stevens, J., dissenting).
52. Silbey, Critics, supra n. 9, at 550.
53. Id. at 498.
54. Redish, supra n. 7, at 1352-53.
55. Id. at 1352.
56. Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1272 (11th Cir. 2007) (Presnell, J., concurring);
57. but see Harris, 127 S. Ct. at 1779 (Ginsburg,J., concurring).
58. Mecham v. Frazier, 500 F.3d 1200 (10th Cir. 2007);
59. Green v. New Jersey State Police, 2007 WL 2453580 (3d Cir. 2007).
60. Beshers v. Harrison, 495 F.3d 1260, 1262 n.1 (11th Cir. 2007).
61. http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/stlouiscitycounty/ story/EF3667C8016 5B68086257353001498DC?OpenDocument. The video quickly began making the rounds on the internet, http://www.xomba.com/brett_darrow_ cop_video_0
62. http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ID=&URL= http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ksdk. com%2Fnews%2Fnews _article.aspx%3Fstoryid%3D130123%26provider %3Dtop&ZURL=%2FBrett%2BDarrow%2F trackers%2F3%2FNews%2BBrett%2BDarrow%2B Sergeant%2BJames%2BKuehnlein