Advertisement

Design and Implementation of Substantive Applications in Criminal Law: Beyond A Court Management Perspective

  • David E. Woodin

Abstract

This paper describes the experience of one New York court in extending its uses of microcomputers beyond the records management functions initially contemplated, to encompass substantive applications serving the judiciary in an advisory role. The applications described include a rule-based expert system in case disposition, and a system for the detection of ethical conflicts in the selection of assigned counsel. These substantive applications are seen to significantly extend the utility of the standard database functions typically encountered.

Keywords

Expert System Ethical Conflict Prolog Program Plea Bargain Substantive Application 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1].
    Stout, Ronald M. and Seward, Ronald G. (1985) “Microcomputers: Information Managers in the Courts,” 10 The Justice System Journal 97.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    See, e.g.,Mulder, Richard V. and Gubby, Helen M., “Legal Decision Making By Computer: An Experiment With Sentencing”, IV Computer/Law Journal 243 (1983).Google Scholar
  3. Pethe, Vishwas P., Rippey, Charles P. and Kale, L.V., “A Specialized Expert System For Judicial Decision Support”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, p. 190. SGoogle Scholar
  4. imon, Eric, “ASSYST - Computer Support for Guideline Sentencing”, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law,p. 195.Google Scholar
  5. [3].
    See Kerschberg, Larry, Expert Database Systems, Proceedings From the First International Workshop, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc., Menlo Park, California (1986), Preface, p. iv.Google Scholar
  6. [4].
    See, Susskind, Expert Systems in Law, A Jurisprudential Inquiry, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1987);Google Scholar
  7. Gardner, An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (1987). Ciampi, “Artificial Intelligence and Legal Information Systems”, in Artificial Intelligence and Legal Information Systems, Volume I, C. Ciampi (ed.), North-Holland Publishing Co., 1982, p. 49;Google Scholar
  8. Finan, “Lawgical: Jurisprudential and Logical Considerations”, 15:4 Akron Law Review 675 (Spring, 1982 );Google Scholar
  9. Meldman, “A Structural Model for Computer-Aided Legal Analysis”, 6 Rutgers Computers & Law 27 (1971);Google Scholar
  10. Frank, Courts on Trial,Princeton, Princeton University Press (1949), pp. 206–208.Google Scholar
  11. [5].
    See, Tito, “Artificial Intelligence: Can Computers Understand Why Two Legal Cases Are Similar?”, 7 Computer/Law Journal 409 (1987).Google Scholar
  12. [6].
    Susskind, Expert Systems in Law, A Jurisprudential Inquiry, Clarendon Press, Oxford (1987);Google Scholar
  13. [6].
    Gardner, An Artificial Intelligence Approach to Legal Reasoning, The M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (1987).Google Scholar
  14. [7]
    See, e.g., People v. Maderic,142 AD2d 892, 893 (3d Dept., 1989).Google Scholar
  15. [8].
    See New York State Criminal Procedure Law (CPL) 390.20, 390.30, 390.40, 400.10. New York State Penal Law (PL) Articles 60–85; see esp., PL 60.01, 60.05, 60.11, 70. 02–70. 10.Google Scholar
  16. [9]
    CPL 220.10, 220.30.Google Scholar
  17. [10]
    People v. Glover,57 NY2d 61; People v. Green,56 NY2d 427.Google Scholar
  18. [11]
    CPL 100.40(1)(c), 200.50(7)(a).Google Scholar
  19. [12]
    CPL 170.35(1)(a), 210.20(1)(a), 210.25(1).Google Scholar
  20. [13]
    CPL 210.20(1)(a), 210.25(1)). People v. Bartley,47 NY2d 965; People v. Maderic,142 AD2d 892; People v. Cook,93 AD2d 942; People v. Hicks,79 AD 2d 887; Matter of Wadsworth v. Mogavero,71 AD2d 157. People ex rel Gray v. Tekben,86 AD2d 176, affd. 57 NY2d 651, see People v. Williams,95 AD2d 726. CPL 440.20(1), 440.40(1). CPL 470.15(2)(c), 470.45.Google Scholar
  21. [14]
    TM Borland International, 1800 Green Hills Road, P.O. Box 660001, Scotts Valley, CA 95066–0001.Google Scholar
  22. [15]
    Gunga Clerk, version 1.2. Copyright (C) 1988, 1989, Due Process Software, 340 Main Street, P.O. Box 433, Catskill, New York, 12414.Google Scholar
  23. [16]
    TM Nantucket Corporation, 12555 W. Jefferson Blvd., Suite 300, Los Angeles, CA 90066.Google Scholar
  24. [17].
    Koers, A.W., et al., Knowledge Based Systems in Law, Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers, Deventer, The Netherlands, 1989, pp 58–68.Google Scholar
  25. [18].
    See Bratko, Ivan, Prolog Programming for Artificial Intelligence, Addison-Wesley (1986), pp. 262–273.Google Scholar
  26. [19]
    A.BA. Code of Professional Responsibility,DR 5–105(D). “If a lawyer is required to decline employment or to withdraw from employment… no partner or associate of his or his firm may accept or continue such employment.”Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • David E. Woodin
    • 1
  1. 1.Greene County CourtNew York State Unified Court SystemCatskillUSA

Personalised recommendations