Re: West "editing" of Supreme Court cases

[Scarberry, Mark]

For more recent federal cases, Westlaw offers a PDF (Adobe Acrobat) file version, which is like a photographic image of the page from West's Supreme Court Reporter. The PDF version should include italics. You can view the image; you can also print it. For example, Stevens v. Dept. of Treasury , 500 U.S. 1 (1991), is available on Westlaw with a "West Reporter Image (PDF)" link near the top of the first page.  Here is what West says in a help file about PDF versions:     Printing Reporter Pages To print an exact copy of a case published in the West Reporter, complete these steps: Click West Reporter Image (PDF) in the document you are viewing or at the Print page. Click OK to display the PDF image in a new browser window. (Adobe Acrobat Reader is required. Click Get Acrobat Reader to download a free copy of the reader.) Click the Print icon or choose Print from the File menu to print the reporter page. Note: Reporter page printing is currently available for federal case law since 1980. ******   Mark S. Scarberry Pepperdine University School of Law   -----Original Message----- From: Bryan Wildenthal [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:53 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: West "editing" of Supreme Court cases   It struck me that the messages attached below, forwarded by our library director, about "editing" of Supreme Court opinions by West, have considerable relevance for those of us whose craft of constitutional law requires us to have recourse so often to Supreme Court opinions.  I have noticed similar things in studying numerous old cases for my 14th amendment articles and forthcoming book. What I have seen is mainly that the West versions of 19th century cases include a lot of typos and mistakes, and do indeed omit some of the front material mentioned in the below messages. Also, the Westlaw on-line versions of all cases, up to the present day, erase italics, which is a real problem when you want to quote verbatim, especially for a writer like me who likes to use insertion of emphasis (always identified as my own or not) as a stylistic tool. I recently came to the frustrated conclusion that I will have to photocopy by hand the original official US Reports versions of more than 50 key cases that are important sources for my current book. I am disturbed to hear that even more extensive modifications appear as described in the below message. This certainly strengthens my unwillingness to rely on West, or especially on Westlaw! Bryan Wildenthal Thomas Jefferson School of Law   -----Original Message----- From: Roger Jacobs [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 12:45 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Have any of you received reports about the issue noted by Mark Lambert which came to me from a colleague monitoring another list? I find this Bowdlerization without notice disturbing and feel it should not go unnoticed by law librarianship. Roger   >>From: "Mark Lambert" [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Has anyone else encounted the "editing" done by West of early Supreme >>Court Reports as noted below? >> >>Any related experiences, examples, comments? >> >>Thank you. >>Mark >> >>Mark Lambert >>Special Collections and Government Documents Librarian >>Fred Parks Law Library >>South Texas College of Law >>Houston, TX >> >>From: Thomas H. Martin >> >>Matter: Does Westlaw corrupt the texts? >> >>Has anybody else had the experience of comparing a Westlaw-reported case >>to the printed account of the case, and finding significant variations? >> >>I have told you about the 1804 Supreme Court case on maritime salvage, >>Mason v. Ship Blaireau, 2 Cranch (6 U.S.) 240, that I use in my >>Restitution class. Last night I was reading this case in the Westlaw >>version. I suddenly realized that some language that I remembered from >>Cranch's report was missing. I then compared the texts more carefully. >> >>Westlaw modernizes and summarizes Cranch's report, to no good effect that >>I can see. Compare: >> >> >>Cranch: The ship Le Blaireau, James Anquetil, master, on a voyage from >>Martinique to Bordeaux, laden with sugar, on the 30th of March, 1803, at >>10 o'clock at night, in Lat. 35.46 N.-- Long 46. west from Paris, was run >>down by a Spanish 64 gun ship, called the St. Julien, commanded by >>Francisco Mondragora, which struck the bow of the Blaireau, carried away >>her bowsprit, and cutwater close to the seam of the stem, started three >>planks of the bends, and all above them, and crushed to pieces the >>larboard cat-head. Before morning there were three and a half feet of >>water in the hold. . . . >> >> >>Westlaw: The French merchant ship, The Blaireau, laden with sugar and >>coffee, and bound from Martinique to Bordeaux, on the night of the 30th >>of March, was run down by the Spanish sixty-four gun ship, called the St. >>Julien, in latitude 35 degrees 46' north 46 degrees west from >>Paris. The Blaireau was greatly injured by the rencounter [sic., >>"rencounter" in original], and before morning there were three feet of >>water in her hold. >> >>Westlaw has reduced important points to summaries and has entirely >>omitted the arguments of counsel which are so important and >>characteristic a feature of early Supreme Court reports. The overall >>effect is to put a Reader's Digest version of Cranch's report before the >>Westlaw user with no warning that the Westlaw text is not authentic. >> >>I find this startling indeed. LawLibDir mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.washlaw.edu/mailman/listinfo/lawlibdir