Privacy Policy

Privacy Policy for mobius-loop.blogspot.com

If you require any more information or have any questions about our privacy policy, please feel free to contact us by email at jasmanirasi@gmail.com.

At mobius-loop.blogspot.com, the privacy of our visitors is of extreme importance to us. This privacy policy document outlines the types of personal information is received and collected by mobius-loop.blogspot.com and how it is used.

Log Files
Like many other Web sites, mobius-loop.blogspot.com makes use of log files. The information inside the log files includes internet protocol ( IP ) addresses, type of browser, Internet Service Provider ( ISP ), date/time stamp, referring/exit pages, and number of clicks to analyze trends, administer the site, track user’s movement around the site, and gather demographic information. IP addresses, and other such information are not linked to any information that is personally identifiable.

Cookies and Web Beacons
mobius-loop.blogspot.com does use cookies to store information about visitors preferences, record user-specific information on which pages the user access or visit, customize Web page content based on visitors browser type or other information that the visitor sends via their browser.

DoubleClick DART Cookie
.:: Google, as a third party vendor, uses cookies to serve ads on mobius-loop.blogspot.com.
.:: Google's use of the DART cookie enables it to serve ads to users based on their visit to mobius-loop.blogspot.com and other sites on the Internet.
.:: Users may opt out of the use of the DART cookie by visiting the Google ad and content network privacy policy at the following URL - http://www.google.com/privacy_ads.html

Some of our advertising partners may use cookies and web beacons on our site. Our advertising partners include ....
Google Adsense


These third-party ad servers or ad networks use technology to the advertisements and links that appear on mobius-loop.blogspot.com send directly to your browsers. They automatically receive your IP address when this occurs. Other technologies ( such as cookies, JavaScript, or Web Beacons ) may also be used by the third-party ad networks to measure the effectiveness of their advertisements and / or to personalize the advertising content that you see.

mobius-loop.blogspot.com has no access to or control over these cookies that are used by third-party advertisers.

You should consult the respective privacy policies of these third-party ad servers for more detailed information on their practices as well as for instructions about how to opt-out of certain practices. mobius-loop.blogspot.com's privacy policy does not apply to, and we cannot control the activities of, such other advertisers or web sites.

If you wish to disable cookies, you may do so through your individual browser options. More detailed information about cookie management with specific web browsers can be found at the browsers' respective websites.

So far, we have created ... 343,001 Privacy Policies.

Grab the HTML for this Privacy Policy
Create another Privacy Policy

Casey Anthony Trial Compared to Robert Blake (part 1)

With the recent trial of Casey Anthony coming to a surprising conclusion for many, the case has been compared to other high profile trials, including those of O.J. Simpson and Robert Blake. Defense attorney Jose Baez and his team prevailed, due to insufficient evidence to support the charges. Different charges certainly might have delivered a guilty verdict. 

I served on the defense team of Robert Blake, led by M. Gerald Schwartzbach, one of the truly great attorneys of our time. If you or anyone you know needs a great criminal defense attorney, give him a call. He may even bring me along (if you mention you read this article). For another professional reference, here’s a Celebrity endorsement:

Robert Blake: Gerry Schwartzbach "will never be rich" (brief video clip)

I wrote an article for Technolawyer back in 2005, which I will share here now, with a few minor updates. Shortly after publication, I received this note:

Your article was one of the best we’ve ever published! Thank you! 

Neil J. Squillante, Publisher TechnoLawyer/PeerViews Inc.

I hope you’ll enjoy the article. I will post this in two parts. Don’t miss the extra bonus material at the end of part two.

---Ted

Gerry Schwartzbach, Robert Blake, Ted Brooks

Synopsis

During the Robert Blake murder trial, M. Gerald Schwartzbach and his defense team called upon trial and technology consultant Ted Brooks to assist with the trial presentation. In this article, Ted shares his perspective, and provides a behind-the-scenes look at this widely-followed celebrity trial. In particular, he contrasts the trial presentation methods used by the defense and prosecution.

TechnoFeature: Inside Robert Blake's High-Tech Defense

By Ted Brooks

(This article is a TechnoLawyer Exclusive.)

INTRODUCTION

The Robert Blake murder trial captivated the nation. This article discusses the technology used by the defense team and how it compared with that used by the prosecution.

Robert Blake's jury consultant, Lois Heaney (National Jury Project), initially contacted me to meet with attorney M. Gerald (Gerry) Schwartzbach several months prior to the trial date to discuss trial presentation and technology. Lois and I had worked together in the past, and Gerry had never before used technology in trial.

It helps, particularly in larger matters, to involve a trial technology consultant early in the process. Doing so can greatly reduce the amount of duplicative and/or wasted efforts.

THE DATABASES

The defense team had chosen Summation software as the document database, and had created a second database for photos. Summation made it easy for the team to efficiently search and review nearly 40,000 documents and 5,000 photos. The Summation database also included many transcripts of LAPD interviews, preliminary hearings, and the like.

THE CONVERSION

First, we sent our Summation guru, Reggie Pool, to clean up the database, identify and correct any technical "issues," and then copy the database. Reggie worked on several document coding and numbering issues, and then gathered a full copy. This copy would be used during trial, and also converted to TrialDirector for presentation in court.

Normally, a very simple conversion link exists between the two programs. In this case, there were simply too many inconsistencies to enable a smooth conversion. To avoid this problem, make sure that all coding fields (i.e., Author, Date, etc.) are set up correctly, document numbering formats remain consistent, and the database itself is designed, developed, and maintained properly. A database does not know how to forgive human input error -- it simply takes all information and then attempts to organize it.

Because of these issues, we used LoadFile Pro by Image Capture Engineering to generate the proper files to populate a new TrialDirector database, which would include all contents of both Summation databases. By the end of the trial, the new database held over 73,000 combined document and photo images (pages), plus all of the transcripts.

THE DISCOVERY

Once we gathered all the data and created a new TrialDirector database, the defense team could search all the document images and photos simultaneously. All transcripts were included as well, and many were "digitized" to enable searching of the transcripts and playback of the corresponding video or audio. Perhaps the most notable use of this technology during the trial was an edited portion of Robert's 20-20 interview with Barbara Walters, played during the opening argument, during the trial as an exhibit, and during the closing argument.

We then conducted a thorough search and review of the photos, using the capabilities of TrialDirector to quickly review and zoom in on desired items, annotating and identifying them for quick retrieval. During this process, we made many important discoveries, including one photo of an LAPD Detective who didn't even realize he was in the picture -- until we zoomed in on him in front of the jury.

Every document page was reviewed, and rotated if necessary for proper display. Having the two databases combined enables you to search everything at once.

COURTROOM TECHNOLOGY

Nothing will happen with all of this preparation if the court is not consulted prior to coming in and setting up your equipment. In this case, as with most others, we visited the courtroom, and met with the court staff and Judge Darlene Schempp to learn about previous trials, especially the positive and negative experiences.

This "scouting" quickly alerted us to a problem that needed attention in that particular courtroom: the placement of a projector and screen -- typically a small screen and a projector, placed in between counsel and the jurors, provided by the Los Angeles District Attorney's Office.

The Court decided that we would provide the equipment for both sides of this trial (this is typical, as only one set of equipment will normally fit and be allowed by the Judge), so we had to come up with a solution -- with the added conditions that alternate jurors would sit beyond the end of the jury box, over 25 feet away from the screen, and the courtroom would fill with media eager to see the evidence.

To ensure visibility, we installed an eight-foot screen against the rear wall and a 3500 lumen projector with a wide-angle lens, providing space for us to place the projector very close to the screen. As a result, the projector stood far enough forward so as not to interfere with counsel as they addressed the jury, and also gave plenty of screen visibility to the entire courtroom. Some of the journalists even complimented the setup.

Next: Part 2 - The Trial and Verdict

Casey Anthony Verdict: Was it Wrong?

I will begin by stating that I have worked on a number of high profile criminal and civil trials in my career, including the Robert Blake murder defense, so I know what it looks like on the inside. I hope to work on several more, so there are some things I cannot share here.

I will admit that I didn’t follow this trial closely, even though it was deemed the “Trial of the Century” by HLN. Ratings reportedly doubled for the trial on HLN, as they focused almost exclusively on the trial. It is important to note that media carriers are not just a public service – they are a business. Other than a few inside tidbits here and there, my source of information on this trial was the same as most everyone else’s – the various forms of mass media coverage.

While Nancy Grace and the HLN team seemed to imply this was a done deal, as I watched the verdict being published, I can’t say that I was shocked. I may have been leaning slightly toward a guilty verdict, but I know that the jury has information that I do not, and that I have information that they do not. Although the waves of comments on Twitter seemed disappointed with our legal system and the outcome of this trial, I can say that a case is not decided on the opinions of observers and commentators. It is decided by the evidence presented by each side, and in Criminal Law, it must be convincing beyond a “reasonable doubt.” In other words, what the jury sees and hears is used to determine the outcome of the case, and nothing else. Although this jury was sequestered (isolated), a “normal” jury will simply be instructed to avoid any contact or exposure to media coverage of a trial, and not to discuss it with anyone.

During deliberations, the jury has only their notes and admitted evidence to work with. Although we were given an opportunity to see most of the evidence presented to the jury, they were not viewing it along with a picture of little Caylee in one corner, and “Tot-Mom” in another. Visual presentation can be very persuasive. In fact, that’s what I do for a living. It’s not always just the information that matters, but also the way it is presented.

So, do I agree with the verdict? Absolutely. You cannot convict someone if you don’t have the evidence to do so. That’s why our justice system works. It may not be perfect, but it’s the best there is. The jury agreed that Casey Anthony had lied to Law Enforcement Officers, and convicted her, based on the evidence. They found her not guilty of murder, due to the lack of evidence.

For additional info:

What a quick verdict can tell us about a jury by Doug Keene for CNN, about the Casey Anthony trial

The Red Well: Blog Aggregator for Views on Litigation Persuasion by members of the ASTC (American Society of Trial Consultants) 

Jurors and Technology in Trial: What Were Once Vices Are Now Habits By Ted Brooks, about the Robert Blake trial, and others

Video of Robert Blake Verdict

Video of Robert Blake Jury Foreman explaining why they acquitted him.

iPad App for eDiscovery: idocument REVIEW

Reprinted with permission from the July 1, 2011 issue of Law Technology News, ©2011 ALM Media Properties, LLC.


idocument REVIEW, a new iPad App was recently introduced in a brief article by John Cleaves for Law Technology News. The new application sells for $29.99 and claims to tag, highlight, and redact documents. Those features, without more, made it worthy to investigate. There are, however, more key features:

No internet access required to review your documents.

Files are loaded through iTunes in a custom load file format (three files). To load a 20,000 page case takes about 2 and a half minutes.

You can load up to 20,000 pages per case load

You can load multiple cases.

You can Keyword search or search by document ID.

You can tag documents (like in Concordance, Summation, etc.) with up to 16 tags all of which can be customized to whatever the user needs (by the user and on the fly).

You can highlight and redact (black or white).

From iTunes:

idocument REVIEW has been developed to aid the on-the-go litigator! Unlike other document review tools available, idocument REVIEW is not dependent on an internet connection for access to your documents. Maintaining folder structure and OCR, idocument REVIEW provides an essential tool for you to review your documents right on your iPad.

The app allows users to tag, highlight and redact documents -- all at their fingertips. The app is also capable of sorting by tags and searching by keywords and image keys. Reviewing up to 20,000 pages per case load, exporting your changes after review is made possible by Discovery Document Technologies.

The app manages the content of a case on the iPad in three files: a DDT load file, an image file containing the document images, and an OCR file containing extracted text from the images. As advertised, idocument Review allowed me to tag, highlight, and redact documents -- all at my fingertips. I sorted content by tags and searched it using keywords and image IDs.

So what's the process?

1. Provide the data to Discovery Document Technologies for conversion to an iPad load file.

2. Save the iPad load file to the computer you synchronize your iPad with.

3. Synchronize the files with your iPad using iTunes. On your iPad....

4. Review your documents.

5. Export a .DDT file and send via e-mail to Discovery Document Technologies for processing against the original files.

6. Discovery will then send you a revised edition of the original images of your data.
So, this all sounds pretty good. It even comes with a sample data set, which is one of my pet peeves for iPad apps which need some material to learn with. The set is from the Enron matter, which is actually something I worked on several years ago.

There are some great training tutorials on the web site, which will get you quickly up to speed. This is not a complex app – at least from the user’s perspective. It is fairly simple to use, and easy to learn. It seems to run searches very quickly. The only downside of the search results that I can see is that it doesn’t highlight the text. Since you are viewing the image, and not the underlying OCR text file, you will have to visually look for your search hits on the returned pages, if you wish to verify your results.

One little “gotcha,” is the fact that once you’ve completed your review, you’ll need to send a file to Discovery Document Technologies in order to get your reviewed/redacted production set. The app, while useful, won’t be of much value if you can’t get your work product out of it. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, since DDT does have a very good reputation, but just know that you’re going to be married to them throughout the case.

I also did not find any complex search-building options. Typing a simple string of “Enron AND email” rendered no hits, so you’ll be restricted to using this as sort of a first round review. Again, not that that’s a bad thing, but this clearly isn’t going to replace Summation or Concordance.

I wasn’t feeling so warm about spending $29.99 on an app that, while it does appear to be a great value (especially in comparison to applications like Summation or Concordance), requires you to send everything to DDT for processing. However, I found that if you are loading at least 3GB of data, they will give you a voucher for the app, making this more of a “value-added” approach. With that, it becomes a very nice alternative to using a PC, especially if you’re traveling. In the right scenario, it may even be possible to have an entire review team working on iPads. Happy reviewers (with iPads) are good reviewers.

Conclusion

If you’d like to work with some of the coolest stuff available, idocument REVIEW for the iPad is for you. It really is a kick to use, and it works well. Although it has limitations, if you’re able to fit it into your workflow, you’ll have fun doing it. Another way to look at it might be that if you have a set of data to process anyway (3 GB or more gets the app included free), and the processing pricing is acceptable, try it out.
idocument REVIEW $29.99 (or free with 3 GB data order)