Legal communication / legal informatics papers @ LSA 2014: Law and Society Association Annual Meeting

Several legal informatics or legal communication papers or programs were presented at LSA 2014: Law and Society Association Annual Meeting , held 29 May-1 June 2014, in Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.

Click here for the conference program.

The Twitter hashtag for the event was #LSAMN14

Here are the legal informatics or legal communication papers or programs from LSA 2014 that we’ve been able to identify, with links to abstracts where available (if you know of others, please feel free to identify them in the comments to this post):

• Santiago Abel Amietta, School of Law, University of Manchester: Devising the Juror: The Power and Knowledge of Participation in the Introduction of Laypersons in Criminal Trials in Argentina


• Jane Bailey, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, Ottawa, Ontario; Jacquelyn Burkell, University of Western Ontario; Graham Reynolds, University of British Columbia: Mind Your Conceptions: Access to Justice and Technology


• Rubens Becak and Joao Victor Rozatti Longhi, University of São Paulo: Deliberative Democracy and Cyberdemocracy: risks and challenges for its implementation in Brazil


• Shelby Bell, University of Minnesota: Composing Judicial Authority Through Rhetorical Style: Pronouns in Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s Opinions


• Alyse Bertenthal, University of California – Irvine: An Appealing Practice: On Legal Forms, Writing Acts, and Making Law


• Ari Bryen, West Virginia University (chair): Case Studies in Law and Language


• Jacquelyn Burkell, University of Western Ontario; Jane Bailey, University of Ottawa Faculty of Law, Ottawa, Ontario: ‘Face’ Value: Empirical Evidence on the Impact of Videoconferencing in the Courtroom


• Kerstin Carlson, The American University of Paris: “Reconciled” Narratives: Reading Reconciliation and Forgiveness at the ICTY


• Beth Cate, Indiana University: Enhancing Collaborative Governance: Open Government Version 3.0


• John Conley, University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill (chair): Cultures of Evidence, Decision-Making and Responsibility in Law


• Robin Conley, Marshall University (chair): Narrative Frames and Consciousness in the Language(s) of Law


• Marianne Constable, UC Berkeley (chair): Rhetoric, Speech Act Theory, Interpretation and Authority in US Legal Language


• Marianne Constable, UC Berkeley: The Unwritten: What’s Law and Language Got to Do with It?


• Richard Cornes, Essex University: Communications innovations at the United Kingdom’s Supreme Court


• Richard Cornes, Essex University (chair): Seeing justice: Courts, technology, communications – a practitioner/theory dialogue


• sidney delong, seattle university school of law: Lex Fiat: The Legal Declarative in Speech Act Theory


• Ronald Den Otter, Cal Poly San Luis Obispo: The New Originalism, Constitutional Construction, and Judicial Lawmaking


• Shari Diamond, Northwestern U Law School/American Bar Foundation; Beth Murphy, American Bar Foundation; Mary Rose, University of Texas: Unpacking the Use of Common Sense on the Jury


• Jennifer Elek and Paula Hannaford-Agor, National Center for State Courts: First, Do No Harm: A Study of an Implicit Bias Jury Instruction


• Tammy Gales, Hofstra University, Hempstead, NY; Lawrence Solan, Brooklyn Law School, Brooklyn, NY: The Language of Sexual Assault Trials: A comparative discourse analysis of witness examinations in non-stranger assault crimes


• Alison Gash and Priscilla Yamin, University of Oregon: Family Values: The Use of Family as a Policy Frame


• Ian Gaunt, Marzulla Law, LLC: Turtles, All the Way Down: Two epistemologies and one legal critique


• Ursula Gorham, University of Maryland: At the Intersection of Access to Justice and Access to Legal Information: An Exploratory Study of LSC-Funded Statewide Legal Information Websites


• Keith Hiatt, UC Berkeley: Innovation and Inclusion in Cyber Spaces: The Process of Accessibility in New Media and Devices


• Keith Hiatt, UC Berkeley (chair): Pooling Data for Justice: Information Collaboration and the Law


• Heather Hlavka and Sameena Mulla, Marquette University: Texts, Tweets, Social Networking and the Law of Evidence


• Amelia Hritz, John Blume, Theodore Eisenberg, Valerie Hans, Sheri Johnson, and Caisa Royer, Cornell University: The Death Penalty: Should the Judge or Jury Decide who Dies?


• Guusje Jol, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen; Fleur van der Houwen, VU University Amsterdam: Juvenile court: orientations to the juvenile’s participation in the proceedings


• Andrew Krebs, University of Texas at Austin: An Appeal to Fairness: Exploring the Race-Effect of Voir Dire Techniques in Civil Trial


• Sarah Lageson, University of Minnesota: Conceptions of the First Amendment and Online Crime Reporting


• Karen Levy, Princeton University: Stickers, Fax Machines, and a Bead of Sweat: Challenges of Human/Machine Law Enforcement Hybridity


• Christian Licoppe, Department of Social Science, Telecom Paristech, Paris, France; Laurence Dumoulin, ISP /ENS Cachan, Cachan, France: Technology in the courtroom: the case of videoconference


• Bharat Malkani, University of Birmingham: Voices for Abolition: A Comparative Study of Slave Narratives and the Testimonies of Death Row Exonerees


• Keith Mayes, University of Minnesota: “To Not Allow That Person to Finish His Vicious Speech:” Black Power’s First Amendment and Urban Riots in the 1960s


• Tania Melo, University of Washington: An Institutionalist Love Story: Marriage Equality in Washington State


• Michael Mopas and Phillip Primeau, Carleton University, Ottawa, ON: “Hear what I hear”: Audio forensics and expert listening in the George Zimmerman murder trial


• Kwai Ng, UCSD (chair): Interaction and Ideologies of Language in Legal Contexts


• Aviva Orenstein, Indiana University Maurer School of Law: Evidence and Emotion: Juror Decision-Making and the Emotion of Regret


• Jessica Pelliciotta, Temple University Beasley School of Law, Philadelphia, PA: Connected Cities: A Comparison of Citywide Efforts to Increase Broadband Adoption and Broadband Speeds


• Elizabeth Porter, University of Washington School of Law: Visual Persuasion: Multimedia Written Advocacy


• Anna Offit, Princeton: The Vital Role of Imagined Jurors in the Age of the Vanishing Trial


• Vicente Riccio and Clarissa Diniz Guedes, Law School Federal University of Juiz de Fora: The Use of Video Evidence in a Civil Law Country: a first empirical analysis in Brazilian Courts


• Justin Richland, University of Chicago: Perpetuity: On the Intertextual Time-Space of Law’s Authority


• Antti Rissanen, National Research Institute of Legal Policy/Helsinki, FIN: Legal help closer than you think: Family and Inheritance problems in online discussion forums


• Mary Rose, University of Texas; Shari Diamond, Northwestern U Law School/American Bar Foundation; Beth Murphy, American Bar Foundation: Domains of Personal Experience on Civil Juries


• Mary Rose, University of Texas (chair): The Lives of Jurors: Experience, Commonsense and the Boundaries of Extra-legal Bias


• Aline Santana, Luciana Ramos, and Marco Antonio Loschiavo Leme de Barros, Fundação Getulio Vargas, Brazil: Legal reasoning among Brazilian Courts: a study of an institutional dialogue


• Aaron Smyth, University of California, Berkeley (chair): Technology and Access to Justice


• David Tait, University of Western Sydney: Tablets in the jury room: enhancing performance while undermining fairness?


• David Tait, University of Western Sydney (chair): Technology in the Courtroom


• Fleur van der Houwen, VU University Amsterdam; Wyke Stommel, Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen: Legal and lay perspectives: interactions at a legal service counter


• Margaret van Naerssen, Immaculata University, Wayne, PA; Ann Wennerstrom, private law firm, Seattle, WA: Myths about Non-native Speakers: The potential for inequalities in legal Processes

For full text of papers, please contact the authors.

Filed under: Abstracts, Applications, Articles and papers, Conference papers, Conference resources, Research findings, Technology developments, Technology tools Tagged: #LSAMN14, Access to justice and legal information systems, Access to justice and technology, Courtroom technology, Judges' legal reasoning, Jurors' legal communication, Jurors' legal technology, Law and Society Association Annual Meeting, Legal communication, Legal communication conferences, Legal decision making, Legal informatics conferences, Legal narrative, Legal reasoning, Legal rhetoric, Legal technology for jurors, LSA, LSA 2014, Technology for access to justice



via Legal Informatics Blog http://ift.tt/1k14fD8