Law Library Letter

Free Online Seminar: BriefTools & CiteAdvisor: An Integrated Document Review System

2009-07-01T13:43:00.002-07:00

For those of you who have Westlaw access, here's a free training opportunity from Westlaw. And if you don't have Westlaw access in your office or home, you can use the law library's free public Westlaw access!

Sign up for this informative online seminar that will illustrate how to use West BriefTools and West CiteAdvisor to quickly and easily produce accurate and perfectly formatted legal documents.

Some tips you'll learn include:

Assure your brief cites only good law
Locating and leveraging internal documents that are relevant to your case or topic
Give yourself an advantage in monitoring the status of authority that your opposition cites
How to format legal citations within briefs, motions, decisions, opinions, and law review articles
Selecting your jurisdiction and the formatting rules (i.e. Bluebook) you want to follow
Building and inserting tables of authorities

Plus, since it's a live, interactive seminar, you'll have a chance to ask questions.

Registration is simple. Select a day and time that works best for you, then click on it to sign up:

Webinar Times
Tuesday, July 7, 2009, 10AM Central Standard Time
Thursday, July 9, 2009, 2PM Central Standard Time

If you're not available for this seminar, or if you'd prefer a one-on-one teleconference regarding your specific research needs, please call 1-800-328-0109 to speak with your dedicated attorney trainer for training.

Official, Authentic, Permanent? -- Not Online

2009-06-18T13:27:00.017-07:00

Written by Katie Jones*

Primary online legal resources in Wyoming are not official. Nor have they been authenticated. And which state agencies that provide the online legal information have addressed the issue of permanent public access[1]? So, what does this mean? Can we still use them? Are they reliable? What happens if you refer to a statute that was printed from the Legislative Service Office web site instead of providing a certified copy of that statute from LSO itself?

The American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) completed a survey that resulted in the State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources[2] and answers, as of March 2007, the question, “How trustworthy are state-level primary legal resources on the Web?” AALL also held a national summit in April 2007. The summit, Authentic Legal Information in the Digital Age (http://www.aallnet.org/summit/), brought together national leaders to explore legal and technological solutions to ensure that state online legal information can be authenticated and will be preserved. In addition to members of the AALL Executive Board and leaders, outside delegates included representatives from the American Bar Association, National Conference of State Legislators, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and officials from state courts, state legislatures, state archives and the Federal government.

The Summit addressed the concepts of what is official[3] and authentic[4] legal information, especially as reported in the survey by each individual state's online legal information. The survey targeted six sources of law: state administrative codes and registers, state statutes and session laws, and state high and intermediate appellate court opinions. Survey results showed that a significant number of state online resources are official but none are authenticated or afford ready authentication by standard methods. State online primary legal resources are, therefore, not sufficiently trustworthy. These are the key findings supporting the need to address at the very least authentication and permanent access of our state online legal resources[5]:

States have begun to discontinue print official legal resources and substitute online official legal sources. [Alaska, Indiana, Tennessee, Utah, District of Columbia]

Ten states & D.C. have deemed as official one or more of their online primary legal resources. [Alaska, Indiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Mexico, New York, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia]

One or more of the online primary legal sources of eight states have “official traits,” where evidence as to the actual status of the resources is conflicting. [Alaska, California, New Jersey, Ohio, Texas, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, District of Columbia]

States have not acknowledged important needs of citizens and law researchers seeking government information; they have not been sufficiently deliberate in their policies and practices.

No state’s online primary legal resources are authenticated or afford ready authentication by standard methods.

Eight states have provided for permanent public access (PPA) to one or more of their online primary legal resources. [Alaska, California, Indiana, Minnesota, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas and Utah]

Kathy Carlson, Wyoming State Law Library director, responded to the survey for Wyoming (http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash/authen_rprt/StateReports.pdf). Her report noted that while the chain of custody for Wyoming's online legal resources is secure, the online versions are not deemed official and are not authenticated. When preparing for this article, I contacted several agencies to review the status of Wyoming's online agency rules, statutes, legislative session laws, and Supreme Court opinions.

Amber Green, in the Secretary of State's Compliance Division, verified that the online Wyoming Rules Database (http://soswy.state.wy.us/AdminServices/RulesOverview.aspx) is not considered official and they have not addressed or plan to address authentication procedures. Procedurally, rules are submitted to the legislature through the Legislative Service Office, then reviewed by the Attorney General, signed by the Governor and published by the Secretary of State. An official, certified print copy may be obtained from the Secretary of State. While the online rules may not be official, you can be certain that they will be permanently accessible, as per the Secretary of State Rules on Rules, Chapter 1, Section 8, Copies of Rules.

Wyoming's online legislative resources (session laws and statutes specifically) are also not considered official. Dan Pauli, Legislative Services Office Director, confirmed that LSO is the official custodian of the code database (W.S. 28-8-105(a)(v)) and authorized to contract with a publisher to provide a print version of the statutes (W.S. 28-8-105(c)). Pauli noted that he often provides a notarized affidavit with a copy of a statute from their official code database. There are currently no designs to implement authentication or make the online session laws (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/sessions/legsess.htm) or statutes (http://legisweb.state.wy.us/titles/statutes.htm) official. And while a published print form is statutorily mandated where the online version is not, Pauli said that free online access is planned as long as enough server space is available. Beginning with the 2008 Budget Session, LSO has placed online the published version of the 2008 Session Laws.

There are two online options for Wyoming Supreme Court opinions, provided by the Supreme Court (http://www.courts.state.wy.us/Opinions.aspx) and the Law Library (http://wyomcases.courts.state.wy.us/). Again, these online versions are not considered official and are not authenticated. The Supreme Court has recently implemented an online docketing system, though, that places a watermark much like a date stamp on filings. Judy Pacheco, Clerk of the Supreme Court, and John Capron, Supreme Court Software Developer, both were intrigued by the possibility of authenticating Supreme Court opinions in the future. The Law Library cooperates with the Oklahoma State Court Network (OSCN) to provide online Wyoming Supreme Court opinions back to 1990. Authentication has not been discussed with OSCN as yet, though the I hope to work with them soon to discuss possible implementation. Permanent public access has also not been discussed or made policy for the Supreme Court online decisions. However, the intention is to continue making this legal resource freely accessible online.

One of the sessions during the AALL National Summit focused on suggestions for amending state laws to include authentication. Tim Coggins, Associate Dean for Library & Information Services at University of Richmond School of Law, used the example of Washington State legislation, H.B. 1859, which requires that if the Washington State Register is published exclusively by electronic means, that electronic copy is the official copy. A proposed legal solution would be to add, “and shall be authenticated by a certificate or mark that conveys information as to its certification, and shall be preserved for permanent public access.”[6] Since the Summit, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has approved the creation of a new Study Committee on Online Authentication of Legal Materials to investigate the issues and discuss the feasibility of a uniform law or model act on digital authentication.

With this background information, can we answer the questions at the beginning of this article? In reality, since Wyoming continues to rely on print legal information as official, should we be concerned that the online versions are not authenticated and may or may not be accessible in five, ten or fifty years? Has experience in Wyoming courts shown that most judges accept an online version of a legal resource? Aren't attorneys trusted as officers of the court to provide a correct copy of the statute, rule, or case? But then, how can you really know if it's correct? Can we expect to maintain the recognition that these resources are authoritative and reliable statements of law now and in the future without certainty that they are uncorrupted and complete?

[1]Richard J. Matthews et al., State-by-State Report on Permanent Public Access to Electronic Government Information 2 (Chicago: IL: American Association of Law Libraries, 2003). Also available online at: http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash/State_report.pdf. Matthews et al., define permanent public access [PPA] as a “policy and practice that ensures applicable government information is preserved for current, continuous and future public access.”

[2]Richard J. Matthews and Mary Alice Baish, State-by-State Report on Authentication of Online Legal Resources (Chicago, IL: American Association of Law Libraries, 2007). Also available online at: http://www.aallnet.org/aallwash/authen_rprt/AuthenFinalReport.pdf.

[3]Id. at 8. Matthews and Baish define official as a “version of regulatory materials, statutes, session laws, or court opinions is one that has been governmentally mandated or approved by statute or rule. It might be produced by the government, but does not have to be. … This definition is firmly rooted in the print world. … The fixed nature of the print medium, coupled with the paper publication’s multiple copies and wide distribution, ensures that the print official legal resource, as “governmentally mandated or approved by statute or rule,” is an authentic resource. An online official legal resource offers no such automatic assurance.”

[4]Id. at 8. Matthews and Baish define authentic as a text “whose content has been verified by a government entity to be complete and unaltered when compared to the version approved or published by the content originator. Typically, an authentic text will bear a certificate or mark that conveys information as to its certification, the process associated with ensuring that the text is complete and unaltered when compared with that of the content originator.”

[5]Id. At 10-13.

[6]Baish, Mary Alice, AALL Reaches the Tipping Point in National Leadership on Digital Authentication, AALL Spectrum, July 2007, at 7. Also available online at http://www.aallnet.org/products/pub_sp0707/pub_sp0707_Wash.pdf.

*A much shortened version of this article was published in the Information Connection column (provided by law librarians at the Wyoming State Law Library and University of Wyoming Law Library) of the Wyoming Lawyer, October 2008, Volume 31, No. 5 (the article is available only in print).

Summary 2009 WY 77

2009-06-12T10:56:00.001-07:00

Summary of Decision issued June 12, 2009

Summaries are prepared by Law Librarians and are not official statements of the Wyoming Supreme Court.

Case Name: Bloomer v. State

Citation: 2009 WY 77

Docket Number: S-08-0139

Appeal from the District Court of Park County, the Honorable Gary P. Hartman, Judge.

Representing Appellant Bloomer: Diane M. Lozano, Wyoming State Public Defender; Tina N. Kerin, Appellate Counsel.

Representing Appellee State: Bruce A. Salzburg, Wyoming Attorney General; Terry L. Armitage, Deputy Attorney General; D. Michael Pauling. Senior Assistant Attorney General; Eric Johnson, Faculty Director, Prosecution Assistance Program; Eric K. Thompson, Student Director; and Curtis H. Cheney, Student Intern.

Facts/Discussion: Bloomer was convicted of two counts of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver. He claimed the district court erred in denying his motion to quash the jury panel because the method used to select that panel violated principles associated with selecting a jury that represents a fair cross section of the community. In addition, he asserted that the district court refused to consider probation in violation of established legal principles.

Make-up of Jury Panel: The clerk’s method for jury selection: before each term of court, the clerk received a randomly selected list of 350 jurors’ names from the Secretary of State drawn from voter registration lists and driver’s license records. When a jury trial is scheduled, the district court clerk selects a number of jurors as recommended by the district judge. The names were chosen from the list in alphabetical order. Once the list is given to the district court as a jury panel, those names will not be subject to being called again, unless the clerk has gone through the entire list and it’s necessary to go back to the beginning of the list. The Court reviewed other jurisdictions’ decisions on this issue including Montana in State v. Azure, West Virginia, Arkansas in Henry v. State, Georgia, United States v. Eyster and United States v. Puleo from the 11th Circuit and Walker v. Goldsmith from the 9th Circuit. As was the case with other appellate courts, the Court does not approve of the method used because there are other more “tried and true” methods available that eliminate concerns raised by the instant appeal. The Court stated the method may not be used in any future cases. The only apparent reason for choosing the method used was so as not to inconvenience jurors. Bloomer failed to demonstrate that the method used by the district court clerk deprived him of a fair cross section of the community or that any distinctive group was systematically excluded from the jury panel. The Court concluded the district court did not err as a matter of law in denying Bloomer’s motion to quash the jury panel stating that if an error was made, it was harmless because the Court was unable to identify an irregularity that affected Bloomer’s substantial rights.
District Court’s refusal to Consider Probation: When Bloomer appeared at a Change of Plea and Sentencing Hearing, the district court stated that if he were found guilty on either one of the counts, there would be no request for probation. The Court found the district court’s comment troubling because it suggested that probation would not be considered if Bloomer opted for a trial. However, the Court measured the impropriety of the statement in the context of the entirety of the record on appeal. In the sentencing order, the district court considered the advisability of probation and rejected it as an option in sentencing given Bloomer’s offenses.

Conclusion: The Court stated that the method used in the instant case for seating a jury panel may not be used in any future cases but it concluded that because Bloomer failed to demonstrate the method deprived him of a fair cross-section of the community, the district court did not err. The Court was unable to conclude that the violation adversely affected a substantial right of Bloomer’s to his material prejudice. The district court clearly considered probation at sentencing despite his unfortunate remarks earlier in the proceedings.

Affirmed.

J. Hill delivered the decision.

C.J. Voigt, concurring in part and dissenting in part in which J. Burke joined in part: The Chief Justice concurred with the majority’s resolution of the jury panel issue but would have reversed on the second issue. He stated the facts were barely distinguishable from Guinn v. State where the Court reversed because the record left open the possibility that the sentencing decision was based in part upon the appellant’s exercise of his right to trial by jury.
J. Burke, dissenting: J. Burke disagreed with the majority’s resolution of the jury panel issue. The question was whether the jury selection process complied with Wyoming statutory requirements. The Justice stated it was unnecessary to rely on constitutional principles or decisions from other jurisdictions with different jury selection statutes. The procedures specified by statute insure a random selection process. The procedures used to select the jury panel for Bloomer did not result in a random selection from the set of 350 jurors on the base jury list.

Link: http://tinyurl.com/mt46ky .

[SPECIAL NOTE: This opinion uses the "Universal Citation." It was given an "official" citation when it was issued. You should use this citation whenever you cite the opinion, with a P.3d parallel citation. Please note when you look at the opinion that all of the paragraphs are numbered. When you pinpoint cite to a quote, you should cite to this paragraph number rather than to any page number. If you need assistance in putting together a citation using the Universal Citation form, please contact the Wyoming State Law Library.]