The Different Senses Of The Word "Record" As Used In Court Cases But those would all require some sort of regulation or order outside the usual meaning of the phrase "strike from the record".) (There could be other situations where it is forbidden to record or divulge what was said: secret grand jury proceedings, material under seal, gag orders, etc. I also don't think there is any requirement to delete it from the court reporter's preliminary notes or audio recordings again, only from the final official transcript.
STRIKE MEANING FREE
The decision should be made as if the statement had never been uttered.Īnyone else in the courtroom - lawyers, journalists, members of the public - is free to remember it, write it down, publish it, shout it from the rooftops, or etch it into stone tablets, if they wish. "Stricken from the record" doesn't indicate that the statement is to be kept secret or scrubbed from all history in some Orwellian fashion, merely that it should not be considered in any legal decision-making process (e.g. Such records are usually prepared after the fact by a court reporter based on their shorthand notes or audio recordings, so this indicates that the reporter should simply leave out the statement in question when creating those records, perhaps replacing it with a marking saying "(stricken)" or something of the sort. the transcripts that would be kept on file and used as the basis for formal decisions. My understanding is that "the record" only refers to the official record of the proceeding, e.g. Once the order is made, is that the whole/entire official process? Legal docudrama example as mentioned, shows a physical pen being theoretically used to demarcate. If you also know, does that mean there is any record? Clearly people might remember, but does the law have any power to remember such stricken information? Is the paper burned, or electronically written over? Specifically the delete key or are we burning physical storage? To what extent, for in or out of court, is there penalty for remembering stricken information? Am I correct to expect the same data integrity standards and principles are applied to cloud and court data equally? Is the court obligated to process/serve/protect/encrypt the striking before/during/after in specific written and agreed upon ways in every court room?) of the process. There, the search results are repetitive definitions, and not much of an explanation (maybe specific step-by-step process would help, so for my frame of reference I can try to relate to if a computer strikes information similarly, as an issue of data integrity is it at all an appropriate analogous process to help explain? I'm thinking if that's like a question being moderated/censored/deleted/hidden where there are varying levels of access after, for example, with the process being cursorily defined by standards of law and mostly driven by customs. there are limited references to the legal/technical process that the specific verbal statement has the power to enact. Are there violent connotations historically to the word "strike" as used (very often the term is screamed, by my memory), legal repercussions from being strickened? Speaking terminology, are we talking about specifically the delete key or are we burning fires of physical storage, do such operations require write-over how many times, are there standards for the definition of stages of being stricken, otherwise are there rules for storage (how much leaks/security?), is it a vault filing cabinet with what security, is somebody watching somebody securing the evidence struck, are there universal standards for the polices behind the law, is the strickening process recorded, is there a process? "Strike the record" ("strike from the record", "strike that from the record") is a frequently spoken phrase in legal procedural docudramas.
0 kommentar(er)
