I've searched for "sandwich murder" and did not find what I was looking for, but the way the elisions line up are sometimes pretty funny. I've also learned that Subway shops are among the most dangerous eateries and that bologna especially seems to make people irritable enough to open fire. A few highlights for your consideration, redacted to protect the innocent, guilty, or hungry bystanders
- that the evidence that defendant fired the murder weapon during the sandwich
- bologna sandwich found at the crime scene
- presence in sandwich the morning of the murder
- ways in which they could murder her mother. these included the sandwich ... sandwich incident could not be used
- crime of capital murder. as a habitual offender, sentenced to life ... to the "bologna sandwich" constituted reversible error
- coroner testified that victim had eaten a fish sandwich within 2 hours ... prior to his death
- it was not first degree murder, and the court should have ... sandwich. he paid for the sandwich, but did not pay for the coffee
- convicted of malice murder and possession of a ... sandwich
- she was shot and that she had some change in one hand and a sandwich in the other ... sandwich in your hand kind of slow your progress down in getting a gun out of your ... sandwich
I grew up in a small town of 5000 in rural US and the first murder in the city that I remember was a guy who killed another guy in a subway. It was one of 2 that I remember in about 18 years
I couldn't find any hits on the Alec Balwin manslaughter case for shooting and killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza.
Maybe it's not in the database because the case was dismissed by the presiding judge?
I searched my name. It gave me a hit for someone (criminal trespass) in Texas, in a year I lived there, with my exact same height and ~same weight, and the arraignment date is my birthday. Wasn't me. Spooky!
I just helped a guy get 14 crimes removed from his record that he didn't commit. Someone in Texas just continuously committed heinous crimes over a decade or more and they were all just added to this other guy's criminal record. They seemingly had the same first name/initial/last name (fairly common name). I'm assuming dude in Texas was allowed to commit a crime spree because every time he was pulled in front of the court it looked like he was a first time offender.
My name is coming a bunch of times. They are all patents (?) citing something I wrote. What does this mean? Oh. article cited by patent applicant. I didn't know I inspired a bunch of Microsoft patents in the 2010s :D
Under US law, there is no such thing as a right to be forgotten, because it would infringe on the public's right to remember. This is considered especially important when what is being remembered is a lawsuit, where transparency is essential to protecting the public interest.
Generally not automatically, and not for civil lawsuits or for all crimes, and in the US expungement from court records does not obligate any third party to falsify newspaper archives, etc.: https://ccresourcecenter.org/state-restoration-profiles/50-s...
Relatively sure this would be fine in some European countries. In Germany, afaik it's an ongoing question on whether there's a copyright on the records (especially from the lawyer texts).
The names and so on are always censored anyhow, in some cases it's a bit obvious who did things though. If it's a lawsuit about a company and let's say it sells books online, maybe you can tell by 1-2 things what company it is. But for people, it's not so straight forward.
This is actually starting to become a problem because computers are getting too good at their job.
Let's say a news site reports on a criminal trial of a John Smith, censored as John S. If John Smith was in any way famous before the trial and had an article written about him, that article is somewhat likely to appear in the "you may also like" sidebar when you're reading the censored one. Some news sites try to suppress this, but I'm not sure they're legally required to do so.
I presume since it’s free and is likely domiciled/hosted in America, the owner could probably just scrape euro records and tell the EU “lol get bent” if they made a stink, but probably doesn’t want to run the risk.
I would think so if the right to be forgotten was legal principle in the United States. It only applies in Europe and I don’t think it applies to court records that are public.
In Europe, court records aren't public in the same way as they are in the US.
They're not searchable, they're often not even digitized, and the media is generally not allowed to report the full names of those accused.
Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. If a background check is required, the person of interest has to specifically request an official document from the government proving they haven't been convicted for any crimes, or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job, I have had to do this.
Now there's also a sex offenders registry, which authorized institutions can query directly, although they have to get consent first.
>or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job
In the Netherlands it's not even that -- you can ask for a certificate of "good behavior" with a purpose and they just say yes or no. If the purpose is employment, the form asks which sector you will be employed in, because sex offenders can still work somewhere and so do people convicted of financial fraud. You just don't want them to work in specific places, i.e. near kids or banks respectively.
> Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody.
I have a hard time imagine that law enforcement doesn't have access to it. At that point access is given by degree of difficulty and not "impossible". I could buy "illegal" tho.
Police maintains the database, so of course they can run a background check. But they don't offer it as a service and don't give away the information to anyone except the person it concerns.
I believe it applies to court records, too, as long as the request for deletion is directed at an Internet search engine. The actual court record is not possible to get rid of under the GDPR, you can only make it so your court record is not returned by Google, Bing etc when searching for your name.
Someone outside Europe should make a search engine that only shows records that Euro politicians don’t want the public to see. The idea of the “right to be forgotten” is horrifying and straight out of 1984, thank god once again for the First Amendment.
Same here. I lived there 30 years ago, and my one speeding ticket in TN shows up first. I've had 2 or 3 "rolling stop sign" tickets in CA and can not find them.
Very cool glad this site is still around after the fiasco with the company claiming a hack / breach when it was their own deployment revealing sealed case files.
Where is this getting the docs from? It's a lot of work for FLP/Courtlistener to get stuff, and even they don't have 100% of records (not sure if this site is claiming to have 100%, it's unclear)
All court records are not copyrightable so once one person gets a document from PACER they are free to upload it to things like RECAP. Allegedly PACER is only allowed to charge enough to cover the infra costs of operating it, and has a pretty generous free tier nowadays so it’s mostly law firms that end up having to pay.
The government doesn't go out of its way to throw people in prison for gooning or doom scrolling too much? But have one roach on you in the wrong state...
They're nominally available on the PACER database for a fee that is waived for infrequent users. Queries from there can be archived by the RECAP extension to make the public records unencumbered.
I searched the DB but it seems i couldnt get the actual docket unless i paid for a PACER sub. Is that right ? This is only an index, but to actually see the court docs, you have to pay someone ?
You sign up with a CC. At the end of the month they will reverse any charges if you stay below some threshold for number of queries. You will get PDF links to the court filings related to each case.
I couldn't find any hits on the Alec Balwin manslaughter case for shooting and killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring director Joel Souza.
Maybe it's not in the database because the case was dismissed by the presiding judge?
That’s what they all say XD j/k
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30399881
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25150702
https://www.judyrecords.com/record/qfwy5i5yb1e9
? What are you referring to? I've never heard of such a concept.
A recent law review article on the prospects of this so-called "right" under US law is https://mttlr.org/2020/02/why-the-right-to-be-forgotten-wont..., citing https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/420/469/ ("It is unconstitutional under the First Amendment to criminalize releasing the name of a rape victim or to permit a private right of action against the press for doing so."), and https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca9/12.... See also https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca2/13....
Also would be a very strange to apply this so-called “right” when court records are essential to keeping organs of government accountable.
The names and so on are always censored anyhow, in some cases it's a bit obvious who did things though. If it's a lawsuit about a company and let's say it sells books online, maybe you can tell by 1-2 things what company it is. But for people, it's not so straight forward.
This is actually starting to become a problem because computers are getting too good at their job.
Let's say a news site reports on a criminal trial of a John Smith, censored as John S. If John Smith was in any way famous before the trial and had an article written about him, that article is somewhat likely to appear in the "you may also like" sidebar when you're reading the censored one. Some news sites try to suppress this, but I'm not sure they're legally required to do so.
I presume since it’s free and is likely domiciled/hosted in America, the owner could probably just scrape euro records and tell the EU “lol get bent” if they made a stink, but probably doesn’t want to run the risk.
They're not searchable, they're often not even digitized, and the media is generally not allowed to report the full names of those accused.
Where I live, it's literally impossible to run a background check on somebody. If a background check is required, the person of interest has to specifically request an official document from the government proving they haven't been convicted for any crimes, or listing the crimes they have been convicted for. This is pretty common when starting a new job, I have had to do this.
Now there's also a sex offenders registry, which authorized institutions can query directly, although they have to get consent first.
In the Netherlands it's not even that -- you can ask for a certificate of "good behavior" with a purpose and they just say yes or no. If the purpose is employment, the form asks which sector you will be employed in, because sex offenders can still work somewhere and so do people convicted of financial fraud. You just don't want them to work in specific places, i.e. near kids or banks respectively.
Data minimization is a thing.
I have a hard time imagine that law enforcement doesn't have access to it. At that point access is given by degree of difficulty and not "impossible". I could buy "illegal" tho.
I'm a Jr.
And we know how that story always plays out.
- the domain
- the owner of the website
- the content displayed on the website
And more to the point, to what end? If the info is public knowledge it's public knowledge, it's out there already.
If it doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter.
Can you do structured field queries?
Like, all cases where defendant is X. And maybe where the cause is Y
ETA: which is of course mentioned on the thread root. But RECAP users would be paying, in that case.
Sorry, had to.
I searched the DB but it seems i couldnt get the actual docket unless i paid for a PACER sub. Is that right ? This is only an index, but to actually see the court docs, you have to pay someone ?
Otherwise, courtlistener has PACER docs that us users exfiltrate from PACER and upload for free.