Scott > Recent Status Updates

[A]ppellate judges sometimes “simplify” the facts to elucidate a legal principle. A very clean example of this is Cardozo’s extreme mischaracterization of facts in MacPherson v. Buick (Henderson 2003), but Cardozo also appears to have altered the facts at least marginally in Palsgraf as well (Posner 1990).

Viewed from the perspective of standard economics, [quantity regulations] appear inferior to Pigouvian taxes, for example. Yet, as Glaeser and I (2001) argue, from the perspective of efficient enforcement these rules make perfect sense precisely because the government can co-opt the private sector to facilitate enforcement.

Workplace safety is especially informative because the traditional transaction-cost objection to the Coase Theorem, namely that contracting is impractical because many parties are involved (as with pollution), does not apply.

The public interest theory of regulation ... has been used to justify much of the growth of public ownership and regulation over the twentieth century (Allais 1947; Meade 1948; Lewis 1949).

The public interest theory of regulation ... has been used to justify much of the growth of public ownership and regulation over the twentieth century (Allais 1947; Meade 1948; Lewis 1949).

Justice David Hunt proceeded almost immediately to sentencing. There was no request for an adjournment and no plea in mitigation, apart from Milat saying to the judge, ‘I’m not guilty of it. That’s all I have to say.’

... the cross-examiner teases out the strength of the evidence by directly asking the witness to consider each aspect of the description given by Onions ... this serves as a reminder to the jury of the description given by Onions ... the jury are assisted to make a direct comparison with the witness ... Consider how much more effective it is to put these particulars of description through the witness himself ...

[The Jones v Dunkel] direction was quite common in criminal trials at the time of the Milat trial, but the High Court has since held in Dyers v The Queen (2002) 210 CLR 285 that such reasoning will only be available in the most unusual circumstances and that, as a general rule, such a direction should not be given because of the basic rule that it is for the prosecution to prove its case.

This is a dramatic moment. Tedeschi knew this because he was placing into Milat’s hands the Ruger receiver that, on the Crown’s case, was part of the gun used to murder Caroline Clarke and had been used at the Neugebauer/Habschied murder scene.

a question which, by echoing other evidence in the case, also makes a subliminal submission to the jury: The phrase ‘I’m not 100 per cent sure’ was given as an answer to a number of questions asked of Richard Milat

The prosecution was entitled to, and did, rely on the legal doctrine of ‘joint criminal enterprise’ ... the prosecution had only to establish that Ivan Milan participated in the murders, either alone or with one or more other persons; it was not necessary to establish in relation to each murder which of the participants (if, indeed, there was more than one) stabbed, shot or killed the individual victims.

In Edwardian times, before radio, television and the movies, court watching was a very popular pastime, and Londoners, New Yorkers and Sydneysiders alike would await jury verdicts in high-profile trials in a fever of anticipation.

To the extent that Blue had a definable culture, it tended to view technological aids with some ambivalence, a state of mind boiled down into the aphorism “Each enhancement is an amputation.” This was not so much a definable idea or philosophy as it was a prejudice, operant at a nearly subliminal level.