JUDICATA Deep Data: Mapping the Legal Genome. COMMON LAW Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969) New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981) Arizona v.

JUDICATADeep Data: Mapping the Legal Genome

COMMON LAW

• Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752 (1969)

• New York v. Belton, 453 U.S. 454 (1981)

• Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009)

DEEP DATAThree metallurgic morals

GOLDSit down and make gold data.

LEADIt may take a lot of lead bullets…

APPROACH

• Start with rule-based approaches

• Reviewable, not black boxes

• …but don’t completely ignore AI, of course

SILVER…but it can pay dividends and lead to a silver

bullet.

“With respect to the pervasiveness of harassment, courts have held an employee generally cannot recover for harassment that is occasional, isolated, sporadic, or trivial; rather, the employee must show a concerted pattern of harassment of a repeated, routine, or a generalized nature.”

STRUCTURE

• As much as possible algorithmically

• Acknowledge that code can’t do it all

• 2/3 Engineers, 1/3 Legal

RESOURCES

• A Jailhouse Lawyer’s Manual

• The Oyez Project

JUDICATA

• Adam Hahn

• [email protected]