A tiny little startup named Spindle Law has an interesting idea. They are building, in a kind of collaborative, Wiki-like way, a database of the legal rules that lawyers find in court decisions and in legislation. Their idea is that it’s pretty inefficient to get to those rules by searching and reading long court opinions. They are extracting and organizing the rules with links to the legal sources. They have a long way to go to prove that the concept works, but I like the way they are trying to turn the research process on its head.I call David Curle's remarks "encouraging" because I am the editor of Spindle Law's evidence module.
I take this occasion to remind lawyers, law teachers, law students, etc., that I would welcome their comments (in the evidence module) about rules and principles of evidence, their notes and thoughts on interesting new (or old) cases, and the like. Evidence is a large part -- very probably the largest part -- of the work of most litigators and trial judges. The handling of evidence in litigation is also a fundamental pillar of the rule of law. (Without reasonably accurate factual proof, the rule of law means little and is inefficient.) So let's have a national and worldwide conversation about the U.S. system of factual proof. Moreover, don't you have a yen to broadcast your personal views about legal issues and the law of evidence to the legal world and beyond? '