Posted by Eugene Volokh:
Wikipedia Law:
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_11_09-2008_11_15.shtml#1226596691
From [1]Flores v. Texas (Oct. 23, 2008) (unpublished memorandum):
Appellant�s first three points of error relate to the trial court�s
exclusion of evidence requested by appellant. That is, appellant
complains about the exclusion of evidence concerning (1) the �John
Reid� technique that allegedly results in false confessions, (2)
the �circumstances� surrounding appellant�s written confession, and
(3) his wife�s conversations with police, which were said to be
contained on a compact disc. We hold that appellant has failed to
preserve these complaints for appellate review.
In order to preserve a complaint concerning the exclusion of
evidence, a defendant generally must make an offer of proof or file
a bill of exception to make the substance of the evidence known.
See Tex. R. Evid. 103(a)(2); LaHood v. State, 171 S.W.3d 613, 621
(Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2005, pet. ref�d). Otherwise, as
here, we cannot assess whether the exclusion was erroneous or
harmful. LaHood, 171 S.W.3d at 621. However, appellant failed to
make an offer of proof, or file a post-trial bill of exception, to
preserve his complaint to the trial court�s exclusion of
evidence.[3]
[Footnote 3:] Appellant suggests that we may take judicial notice
of information posted on a �reliable website.� We decline
appellant�s invitation to take judicial notice of the Wikipedia
entry for the �John Reid technique.� See James Glerick, Wikipedians
Leave Cyberspace, Meet in Egypt, Wall St. J., Aug. 8, 2008, at W1
(�Anyone can edit [a Wikipedia] article, anonymously, hit and run.
From the very beginning that has been Wikipedia�s greatest strength
and its greatest weakness.�) (emphasis added).
An interesting and reasonable result, which supports the view that
Wikipedia shouldn't be relied on for contested questions. For certain
uncontroversial matters (such as that [2]the capital of Armenia is
sometimes spelled Erevan), citing Wikipedia is probably fine, given
that the time of judges, staff attorneys, and law clerks is valuable
and best not spent on tracking down The Perfect Source. But when the
matter is subject to reasonable dispute, there should either be a
hearing -- as with other facts about the details of a case -- or a
more elaborate discussion (as with so-called [3]legislative facts that
a court uses to determine the meaning of statutory language, develop
various common-law rules, and the like).
Thanks to [4]BNA's Internet Law News for the pointer.
References
1.
http://www.14thcoa.courts.state.tx.us/opinions/HTMLopinion.asp?OpinionID=85001#_ftn3
2.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_judicial_opinions#Sedrakyan_v._Gonzales.2C_237_Fed._Appx._76.2C_77.2C_n.1_.286th_Cir._2007.29
3. http://www.wcl.american.edu/pub/journals/evidence/commentary/a2r200c.html
4. http://www.bna.com/ilaw/
_______________________________________________
Volokh mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.powerblogs.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/volokh
