Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

The Cobb County decision is out

arroba Email

The opinion has been issued (it’s been described as a “mess” — a remand for fact-finding). Go here:

The following disclaimer sticker should be attached to all copies of Vol. 390 of the 2nd Edition of the Federal Supplement: This book contains material on a court decision about Cobb County evolution-disclaimer textbook stickers. This decision is a theory, not a fact, regarding the existence of a petition and a letter that are the basis for the decision. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully, and critically considered. -------------------------- Approved by Federal Appeals Court of the 11th Circuit, May 25, 2006 ========================== LOL. My own comments about the case are at -- http://im-from-missouri.blogspot.com/2006/05/sticker-shock-appeals-court-ducks.html Larry Fafarman
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf That's what is wanted. jaredl
http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/200510341.pdf That's what is wanted. jaredl
And I wonder with this bodes for Judge Jones? (Granted it's a different district) tribune7
"The problems presented by a record containing significant evidentiary gaps are compounded because at least some key findings of the district court are not supported by the evidence that is contained in the record. We have concluded that the unfilled gaps in the record, coupled with the problematic nature of some of the district court’s factfindings, prevent proper appellate review of the merits of the important constitutional issues raised in this case." (p. 3) Hmmm, I think I can identify with this. It reminds me of the fossil record and a few of those "evidentiary gaps" that make the claim to the "fact" of molecules-to-man evolution a little questionable. sahendric
I have been trying document intensive civil cases, including constitutional law matters, for nearly 20 years. I have never heard of, much less seen, exhibit practice even remotely as shoddy as that which the court of appeals describes. Any first year lawyer knows you must mark with exhibit stickers BEFORE THE TRIAL BEGINS every document you plan to use and every document you might possibly use. The trial practice described in the opinion would earn any second year law student an “F” in a trial advocacy course. I assume that both parties hired competent counsel, and I can only speculate that something is going on behind the face of this that we don’t know about. As for the judge basing his opinion on a document that may not exist and certainly was not entered into evidence, I hope this undeceives anyone who may have still been laboring under the impression that one must be a brilliant jurist to become a federal judge. In their more cynical moments lawyers sometimes say that a federal judge is nothing but a lawyer who knows a senator. BarryA
"We have decided the best thing to do is remand the case to the district court in order for it to conduct new evidentiary proceedings and enter a new set of findings based on evidence in a record that we will be able to review." Back to the drawing board. idnet.com.au
Interesting. How do they "lose" evidence like that? Sounds like things were just sort of cobbled together. (sorry) jacktone

Leave a Reply