Abstract
In Scott v. Harris (2007), the Supreme Court for the first time posted a video on its website, as an appendix to its opinion. The assumption of the majority in this 8–1 decision is that the video speaks for itself; only Justice Stevens suggests otherwise. Looking at the video ourselves, we may want to ask why the Court reacts as it does. I argue that the “reality effect” of the video overcomes analytic judgment on the part of the Court majority. And, further, that this will become a larger problem as videos of police–citizen encounters are promoted as self-interpreting evidence.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
