The case for using, but not citing, Wikipedia.

• Author: Smith, Sean

IF YOU MISSED THE NDAA CONFERENCE that offered a segment on how to deal with the so-called "CSI Effect," here are a few questions you would have had answered. Where can you look to find a brief description or quick information about the so-called "CSI Effect?" Specifically, what does the public think about the "CSI Effect?" Or, is the CSI Effect going to skew juror perceptions in a homicide case in which the defendant shot the victim with a hollow point .38?

The answer: try pointing your Web browser to the online encyclopedia, www.Wikipedia.org, a phenomenon that has become one of the top ten Web sites used world-wide. There is no doubt that Wikipedia is a great resource for people who need a quick answer on a topic they may not be familiar with. Plus, many times there are files associated with the Wikipedia articles that may also be helpful.

Wikipedia should be a part of any prosecutor's Web-based toolbox when preparing for a trial, researching witnesses, or concepts. Look above at the Wikipedia article on hollow point bullets--some of the images associated with the article could easily be used in a trial presentation by a ballistics expert to explain what happens when a hollow point hits a target. The witness should be able to confirm that the image is a fair and accurate depiction of a hollow point bullet.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

In fairly recent court decisions three different appellate courts have cited to Wikipedia to explain terms foreign to the judiciary. But is citing Wikipedia in a legal brief or to a court in oral argument proper? Probably not--in fact, I strongly recommend never citing to Wikipedia for any argument, let alone in a legal context. The reason is simple--Wikipedia is the free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. In theory the concept sounds great, but it is that concept of "anyone" that should raise some red flags.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

As this article goes to print, there are 2,665,263 articles available on Wikipedia covering over two million different topics. But when you read something on Wikipedia you really have no idea who wrote what you are reading, or whether the contributor was an attorney or a video store clerk.

Last August, in Badasa v. Mukasey, --F.3d-- 2008 WL 3981817 (8th Cir. Aug. 29, 2008) the United States Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit made it clear that decisions cannot rest on information obtained from Web sites like Wikipedia. In Badasa, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security...