Your email address:

Powered by FeedBlitz

« Yeah, Amazon does suck - especially for authors | Main | For authors, the skinny on Amazon used books »


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Court records can only be viewed by special people? Can we say STAR CHAMBER? As in, that secret way of proceeding that we ain't s'posed to have in this country?

Maybe they have a Public Records ombudsman at the state level you could petition--we have one in my state. Unless sealed by court order--which should be difficult to obtain and only for some very specific purpose--records relating to a trial should be public. These can be things like testimony that took place in chambers during a motion. But if the trial took place in public, you can't seal the record retroactively. I'm just venting, I know you know all this, better than I. It's a pet peeve, this public records shell game.

Sometimes lower level court personnel don't understand the very public process they are involved in. In my state, the Public Records ombudsman conducts seminars for them.

Sheesh. Super secret trial transcript. Medieval.


God be with him. If Watts was in the frame, he did it!


It still amazes me in this day and age that such travesties of law occur. With information (usually) so freely attainable, it seems impossible that evidence cannot be heard the first time. But corruption is for the ages, isn't it?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search CLEWS

  • Google