GeneaBlogie

Tag Archive for Research

Don’t Cry About the SSDI

November 8, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Last spring we did a two part series on the Social Security Death Index and it progenitor, the Death Master File. The posts are here and here. The series was prompted in part by reports of errors in the Death Master file, especially those which reported living persons as deceased.

We learned that nearly 90% of the information in the DMF comes from “first-party” reporters, that is, family, friends and funeral homes. About 5% of the information comes from States and federal agencies and the remaining 5% from postal authorities and financial institutions.

In terms of errors, the Inspector General of the Social Security Administration reported in 2009 that 89% of the errors in the DMF were the fault of SSA staff input mistakes. First-party errors comprised between 3.4% and 4.1% of the errors. The lowest error rates were from state reports (0.7% for non-electronically transmitted records) and 1.5% for states enrolled in SSA’s Electr9nid data records program. [The VA also had an error rate of 0.7%].

Now, as of November 1, 2011, SSA will no longer include state records in the Death Master File. Much has been written about this, including its potential impact on genealogists.

To understand what has happened, it is useful to examine the history and the legislation on the topic. The Death Master File was made public in 1980 as a result of a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). We’ve talked about FOIA as a genealogical tool in this space before. See the posts Getting Info from the Government–FOIA 101, FOIA Spotlight: The U.S Deparrtment of State, and My FOIA Request Update.

The purpose of FOIA is to make available federal government information to the public. There are numerous exemptions to FOIA. The 1978 lawsuit, Perholtz v. Ross, in the U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia was settled by a consent decree between the Government and plaintiff Perholtz, who apparently sought the SSA’s death information to sell to businesses that might have need to verify deaths.

The first point is, then, that the DMF hasn’t really been public very long. The second is that from 1980 to 2002, state information was not used in the DMF. In 2002, in part in response to a 1998 SSA IG report, the SSA started down the road of electronic reporting from states. By 2008, only 22 states participated in the SSA’s Electronic Data Reporting (EDR) project.

The third point concerns why the SSA has withdrawn state records from the public DMF. The law which authorized the SSA to compile death information in the first place was intended to prevent overpayments and fraud in federal benefit programs. The statute is codified at Title 42, United States Code, section 405(r)[originally section 205r of the Social Security Act of 1935]. The law requires the SSA to establish a program under which States voluntarily contract with the SSA to periodically furnish the SSA with information on the death certificates filed with them so that necessary corrections may be made to the beneficiary records maintained under the social security program. This provision was added as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1983, Public Law 98-21.

But part of the 1983 Amendments provided that:
Information furnished to the Commissioner of Social Security under this subsection may not be used for any purpose other than the purpose described in this subsection and is exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5 and from the requirements of section 552a of such title.

The reference to section 552 is to FOIA; section 552a is the Privacy Act. The 1983 amendments took state-provided information out of the realm of public record as an acknowledgement of differing state rules about the privacy of such information.

As much as I hate to see governmental restrictions on what ought to be public information, I can’t say that this restriction will have a significant impact on genealogy. Recall that 90% of the data in the DMF comes from first-party reporters, not states. So at least 90% of the data is unaffected. Some genealogists may have to dig a bit deeper into other sources in some cases. Recall also that states differ concerning the restrictions on vital records. Thus, in some cases, what’s no longer easily gotten via the SSDI, may still be relatively available from state sources. And even though the SSA is going to pull existing state records from the DMF, that does not invalidate the data. Nor in my opinion should make that data non-citeable. The citation should include the date the information was obtained from the SSDI and the source of the SSDI (remembering the distinction between the SSDI and the DMF).

No comments Death Records, FOIA, Research, SSDI

Reference Review: African-American Genealogy at a Glance

September 19, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Just the other morning, a young protege was saying that her research seemed unfocused and that she thought she needed to go someplace other than her usual research venues. I talked a few ideas with her. Then, the next day, I received a review copy of Genealogy at a Glance: African American Genealogy Research. My protege’s dilemma was solved (almost)!

A 2011 addition to Genealogical Publishing Company‘s series, Genealogy at a Glance, this four page reference is by Michael Hait, one of the points of light in the sometimes foggy world of genealogical research. (Wait, did you say four pages? Yes, yes I did say “four pages!”).

Okay, so I was skeptical, too, that such a topic could be adequately and accurately reduced to just four pages of text. But as I studied it, I found it to be concise, easy to understand, yet accurate and comprehensive. Hait covers the field very nearly completely in the space allotted. From “Basic Research Sources” to “Free African Americans in the North and South” the author gives tips and reference citations. He tells where to find the records (many have limited availability).

This reference is useful for novice and experienced researchers alike. It certainly is a road map of sorts for the newcomer; for the old hand, it may jog a memory or inspire a new approach. For all experience classes, it can provide an organizing template for research.

The material really is usable “at a glance.” Hait’s writing is direct and active; the editorial lay out is easy to follow. At the end, he includes a short list of online resources and a “Further Reading” section.

A concession to space, no doubt, was the omission of special collections at academic research institutions such as the Louisiana State University Libraries or the University of Virginia, which house many files of slave-owning families.

But nonetheless, Michael Hait, who writes the African-American Genealogy Examiner column, scores again with this simple, but elegant reference guide. Check out Michael’s own websites at haitfamilyresearch.com and Planting the Seeds.

Genealogical Publishing Company is the world’s leading publisher of genealogical books and CD’s, with over 2000 titles in its catalog.

2 comments African-Americans, Research, Resources, Slavery, Slaves

The Reliability of Oral Histories–The Forensic Approach to Evaluation

July 13, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Part 2 of a three-part series. Part 1 is here.

When last we met, we explored the issues associated with the reliability of “eyewitness testimony” in court and applied similar concepts to first-person accounts of historical and genealogical events. We discovered several issues that might make “eyewitness testimony” unreliable. Now we explore the 21st century approach to eyewitness testimony and apply a forensic approach to first-party reporting of genealogical events.

California juries are now told by judges to apply certain factors in the evaluation of eyewitness evidence. These factors focus on the ability of the witness to perceive the event; circumstances which might interfere with the witness’s ability to remember and recollect; and the empirical corroboration of the witness’s evidence. See California Criminal Jury Instruction No. 315. This jury instruction points the way to a forensic approach to evaluating the reliability of oral histories.

Taking the forensic approach to oral history, the genealogist will want to consider the following:

How familiar was the reporter with any of the background circumstances or parties before the event?

How well could the reporter see, hear, and comprehend the event?

What were the circumstances affecting the reporter’s ability to observe, such as lighting, weather conditions, obstructions, distance, duration of observation, and any other relevant circumstances?

How well could the reporter see, hear, or otherwise perceive the event?

Was the reporter under any type of stress when he or she made the observation?

What was the interval of time between the reporter’s perception of the event and his or her report thereof?

What was the mode of interrogation of the reporter? (open-ended questions, suggestive questions, follow-up)

What was the demeanor of the interrogator? (hostile, aggressive, judgmental, or not?)

Is the reporter’s version substantially corroborated by credible independent evidence?

What is the level of the reporter’s cognitive development, that is, considering the person’s age, how well is he or she able to perceive, understand, remember, and communicate?

Did the reporter have a relationship with someone who, inadvertently or deliberately, could have influenced the reporter’s version of events?

Not every oral history will reveal all of these factors. But as the evaluator, one is not expecting to find “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” as would be the case in a courtroom.

As we have said here before, nothing can be “proven.” The evaluator must judge the credibility or believability of the oral history reporter. In deciding whether the oral evidence is true and accurate, evaluators should use common sense and experience.

Coming: Part III – Second or Third Party Reporting (“Hearsay”) in Oral Histories

No comments Evidence, Law, Law & Psychology, Oral History, Psychology, Research

The Reliability of Oral Histories Considered

July 11, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

[Music; loud with fast, heavy beat]

[Baritone voice with emergency pace and tone]:“Eyewitness News! The [Valley's][Metroplex's][Tri-State Area's][Ark-La-Tex's][Bay Area's][Central Coast's][Middle Tennessee's] Most Reliable Newscast! With the entire Eyewitness News Team! This is Eyewitness News at Six [o'clock]!”

That voicer (or words and music to that effect) has been heard on television stations all over America at one time or another in the last fifty years. See here, here, and here, for example. Indeed, if broadcast journalism is the cinema verite B-roll of history [sorry, inside gag and obscure esoteric reference], what could be better than “Eyewitness News”?

Likely, the lead story on Eyewitness News At Six, wherever in the country it may be broadcast, is a crime story. The reporter doing the standup at the court house or police station will report eagerly (but enthusiastically) that “Channel 7 has learned that there are two eyewitnesses to the crime,” or will lament in grave tones that “Police tell Channel 4 that there were no eyewitnesses.”

The genealogical equivalent of “Eyewitness News” is the oral history. And since genealogy is history, what could be better than the oral rendition of an eyewitness?

But both broadcast journalists and genealogists should take heed of what sophomore psych majors and first-year law students learn about eyewitnesses: they are notoriously unreliable.

A demonstration that has become an hoary chestnut among law professors and their counterparts in the psych department involves a surprise intrusion into the classroom by an individual who “assaults” the prof or steals her purse and runs out in a matter of a minute, if not seconds. Students are then asked to identify the “perp” by physical description or clothing worn; or to relate the sequence of the event.

Of course, both of you who had the misfortune to see Wink Martindale’s game show Instant Recall more than once, and all of you smarter than a fifth grader (mutually exclusive categories), have guessed already that the students have wildly divergent and largely inaccurate accounts of the event.

Millions of trees have given their lives to printing of scientific studies that show eyewitness testimony to be unreliable. Elizabeth Loftus, Ph.D, a pyschologist who is a professor in three research departments and the Law School at University of California, Irvine, has written extensively in this area. In her ground-breaking book, Eyewitness Testimony, first published in 1979, Loftus asserts that evidence from eyewitnesses has resulted in wrongful convictions and even wrongful executions in the criminal justice system. Her work and that of others had such a profound effect that, for a time, juries in many states were instructed to view eyewitness testimony “with caution.” This was said to be necessary because of an odd paradox about eyewitness testimony: it was the most unreliable evidence in the abstract, yet at the same time, the most compelling for jurors. Loftus demonstrated that factors such as the time between the event and the rendition by the witness, the mode of interrogation, reinforcement by other witnesses, and assimilation of another’s account, bear heavily on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.

Given this scientific and legal skepticism, what implications are raised by first-person accounts of historical and genealogical events?

First of all, let’s agree that there are differences between an eyewitness who attempts to identify a criminal suspect, and a first-person reporter of an historical event. The crime witness is often questioned under unfavorable circumstances by hostile interrogators who may have their own theories of the case. There are deadlines to be met. The witness may be under the emotional stress of the event. The stakes are high and the pressure to “get it right” may lead some eyewitnesses to get it wrong. There may be a dozen times a hundred other unique factors at play concerning the reliability of eyewitness testimony in a criminal case or even a civil lawsuit.

But now let’s examine the similarities between the crime witness and the first-person historical reporter. The evidence given by both frequently relies on previously unrecorded and non-contemporaneous human memory. Some of the same factors which may affect “eyewitness” crime reporting may also affect oral history. These include the demeanor and behavior of the interrogator and the states of mind of the witness both at the time of the event and the time of reporting. The interval between event and report, stress, and overly suggestive questions may also affect both types of rendition.

Every experienced genealogist knows, and every beginning genealogist will soon know, of first-person renditions that are simply wrong. This doesn’t happen maliciously, usually; often it is the result of fading memories or time-embellished memories or of the mind supplying its own details to make sense of a complicated situation.

I’ve heard stories from people who would swear they are telling it like it was, only later to discover that the person was not even alive at the time of the reported event. I myself for years gave a first hand version of having observed a tornado that touched down in Missouri in 1955 or 1956, while my mother was hanging laundry on the clotheslines in our backyard. Oh, I was there alright and have a vivid “memory” of the event–the sky turning black and green, the winds suddenly swirling about, the frightening sounds as the funnel cloud approached. But I eventually came to question whether I had a “true” memory of that storm. Under more dispassionate analysis, I have concluded that my “recollection” of the event has been substantially influenced by my mother’s account of it, which, at some point in my childhood, I adopted as my own. [Among the factors which led me to question my own memory of this occurrence were that I cannot, of independent memory, account for the whereabouts of my younger brother; I do not recall at all how we got out of harm's way; beyond remembering--if that's what you want to call it--that I was sitting on a step at the back door, I cannot describe the house, important because we lived in two different counties in Missouri during 1955-56; and I have had a difficult time finding contemporaneous reports of the event during the time frame that I "recall" that it occurred].

How does the genealogist or historian evaluate oral history then? We can avoid the traps of the path the law first took: i.e., subjecting all eyewitness evidence to scrutiny so strict that it was more often fatal in fact.

Next in Part II: The Forensic Approach to Evaluating Oral History

No comments Evidence, Law, Law & Psychology, Oral History, Pop Culture, Psychology, Research, Television News

Book Review: If You Knew Google like She Knows Google . . . .

February 5, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

The Genealogist ‘s Google Toolbox, by Lisa Louise Cooke (2011)

If we were all in junior high school, I doubt that anyone would hang the moniker “Geek Girl” on Lisa Louise Cooke. She just seems so socially well-adjusted. But there has to be a little bit of geek in anybody who could write such a clear and cogent guide to expert use of Google.

Although titled The Genealogist’s Google Toolbox, just about anyone who uses a computer would find it useful and fascinating. The book exposes little-known tips about Google and shows how to better utilize some of the well-known aspects of this more-than-a-search engine. She has a great idea about turning your IGoogle page into a genealogical “dashboard” and discusses the gadgets available with which to do that. The book begins with the basic Google search and goes right through to cover Gmail, Youtube, and Google Earth, among other things. Novice and expert alike will find something to enjoy about this book.

Lisa also highlights some sources that that can sometimes be overlooked, such as Google Books. I’ve long been a fan of Google Books as a source of historical background and sometimes specific individual genealogical information. I was glad to see it included in the book.

Google’s capacities are probably far under-utilized by many genealogists. This book will excite you about Google’s many services, and perhaps even help you break down a brick wall, or two.

It’s available from Lulu.com in both electronic form and hard copy. I bought the hard copy book, the first time I’ve ever purchased anything from Lulu.com. I found the process easy and the shipping was swift.

One comment Book Review, Google, Research, Resources

Book Review: Online State Resources

February 5, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Online State Resources for Genealogists by Michael Hait (e-book) (2011).

Even novice genealogists know where to find the basic documents needed for research: the census, for example, can be found on several pay services as well as on free sites like HeritageQuest. But everyone also knows that to do a sufficient job of research, one must look high and low and near and far for other resources. The question that novices sometimes have is, what are these other resources? And more experienced researchers may ask, where do I find these other resources?

Michael Hait provides answers to both of those questions, in his new e-book, Online State Resources for Genealogists. This is a fairly thorough treatment of not only the types of other resources available, but their locations as well. The title is somewhat less than fully descriptive. In fact, in addition to state resources, Hait treats a host of nonstate, but publicly owned, resources. There are also some privately owned resources, such as the records of the Catholic Diocese of Wilmington, Del., some state society sites, and Gwendolyn Midlo Hall’s Afro-Louisiana Slav e Database. And although the title refers to “online” resources, the variety and scope of the resources he highlights will have most readers hankering to go to the brick-and-mortar locations.

Beginning researchers and even some experienced researchers sometimes will overlook the wealth of genealogical resources at State archives and state libraries. He lays out state-by-state, the online location of state libraries and State archives. And he also indicates the contents of the online sites. He includes university libraries, state health departments, a number of local libraries, and County Clerk’s and County registrar’s offices.

I do a lot of research in state archives and local libraries in Texas, Missouri and Georgia in particular. So, cyber – “ground truthing” this book was fun for me. Michael mentions some of my favorite places such as the Texas State Library and Archives and the Portal to Texas History. In Missouri, he describes the Kansas City Public Library ‘s Missouri Valley Special Collections Digital Gallery and the St. Louis County Public Library, also two of my favorite places. (In his next edition, I hope he will tell us about the Jackson County Government site and The Midwest Genealogy Center at the Midcontinent Public Library.).

His book is easy to use because the table of contents is linked to the specific resource that he is examining and the links to the resources are active links themselves. He’s also given us an index by frequently used record types that indicates by state where they may be found.

This is a must-have reference for genealogists of any level of experience. It’s well-organized and may serve as a prompt when one gets stuck. The electronic format with active links is especially convenient for user and author alike because he intends to update the book.

The book is available for purchase at Michael Hait’s web page, http://haitfamilyresearch.com/OnlineStates.aspx

No comments Archives, County Clerks, Libraries, Public Records, Research, Resources, States

Federal Court Research Useless to Genealogists? We Report, You Decide

January 15, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

Last week we reported about PACER, the federal courts’ Public Access to Court Electronic Records system. We demonstrated how it works, and suggested that it may have some genealogical research value. Reader Martin has some issues with that post. In the comments Martin says:

How many genealogical brick walls have been broken down via federal court cases? Not many–possibly none. Federal law is completely searchable in appellate and supreme court cases, but those are just matters of law. District court case opinions (about only 15% are published and maybe as much as 30% are online) are also just matters of law. Even when you can use a database such as Pacer (and you don’t mention the date restrictions–you just say “recent”), not all facts may be in those documents and it is the facts a genealogist would need.

Stick with local and state court cases–that’s where you find genealogical gems. And all those for the time period before 1960 are not online. {with rare exceptions such as the Salem Witch Trials}. Go to an Archives!!!!

Always ready for a great debate, in a most civil manner, of course, we respond:

1. How many genealogical brick walls have been broken down via federal court cases? Martin says: “Not many–possibly none.” I have three responses to that. First, I don’t know that anyone knows how many genealogical brick walls have been broken down via federal court cases. I know at least one in my own research. Second, brick walls are not broken down by any one single piece of evidence. A federal court case that one finds on PACER may well contribute, like every other piece of evidence, to chipping at the wall to one degree or another. Third, the point of any particular resource such as PACER or any archival matter, is not solely to break down brick walls. It’s to add richness and texture to one’s research; it’s to ferret out the stories; it’s to make a complete portrait of an ancestor or an ancestral family. Without those aspects, one is merely collecting names and dates. So for example, I learned that my grand uncle Elias Bowie, as a young man, was tried and convicted in the US District Court for the District of Arizona for selling liquor to an Indian on Christmas Eve 1938. This put a little different shade on the family portrait of Elias as an entrepreneur (which clearly he was later in life). It also told me that he was in Arizona in 1938, which came as a surprise to me. I had long believed that he had worked in Louisiana during the 1930s, and then went into the Army in the 1940s. So another aspect of his life was revealed to me. Of course that raised more questions too. What was he doing in Arizona? Why was he in Arizona? When did he get there and when did he leave? And one can think of many other questions that would arise.

2. Federal law is completely searchable in appellate and supreme court cases, but those are just matters of law. I have several responses to that. First, it’s true that federal law is just about completely searchable in appellate and supreme court cases. Opinions of the appellate courts (including the Supreme Court) are available in a number of places online, including PACER. And some of these places may be easier to search than PACER, though few at the minimal cost of PACER (there are a few online places that are free). But these are not merely “matters of law.” Appellate cases often contain a rendition of the facts found by the trial court. Often it is easier to find the basic facts from an appellate opinion than it is to find any published material from the trial court. So it’s not correct to say that these are “just matters of law.” Second, even if they are just “matters of law,” appellate cases set precedents. Who wouldn’t want to know if their ancestor had been involved with the setting of some great precedent? Wouldn’t that be a grand genealogical discovery! Again, it goes to the story, and tells us about the people behind the names and birth dates.

3. District court case opinions… are also just matters of law. This is plainly incorrect. The trial court is where the factual record is developed. The trial court is where witnesses are heard, exhibits are presented, and all manner of evidence may be offered and either admitted or rejected.

4. Even when you can use a database such as PACER… not all facts may be in those documents, and it is the facts a genealogist needs. Indeed, the great strength of PACER is that one may find hard copies of documents online, which is something that can’t be done in many other legal databases. And, Martin is correct that not all the facts may be found in those documents, but not all the facts are going to be found in any single document or set of documents. The documents on PACER provide facts that would be of genealogical interest. For example, PACER records provide the obvious fact that the person was involved in a court action, but may also provide the person’s name, address, and other vital information.

5. “… you don’t mention the date restrictions–you just say “recent” …” I beg to differ here. In the original piece, I use the phrase “relatively recent” and qualify that by saying “especially those from the 1990s.” I also say that most courts electronic records go back a very limited period of time, most commonly to the 1980s. But I also say that there are courts whose records go back as far as the 1930s, and I describe how to check the date limitation on any particular court.

6. Stick with local and state court cases–that’s where you find genealogical gems. I agree that one is more likely to find “genealogical gems” [doesn't Lisa Louise Cooke own that phrase?] in state court cases. And I try to indicate that in the first piece by stating that federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction–there are no divorce cases, very few accident cases, no juvenile cases. But I wouldn’t say “stick” with local and state court cases, to the exclusion of federal court research; that would be to overlook a huge body of potential evidence, limited in scope though it may be. Additionally, by sticking to state and local cases, you would overlook bankruptcy cases, which are wholly federal, and can be packed with significant family history information.

7. Finally, Martin says, “Go to an Archives!!!” I absolutely agree with this: go to an archives, go to your local library, go to your County Clerk’s office, go to the local courthouse. It’s not all online, but don’t overlook a potentially good resource like PACER, just because it might not have everything you need.

2 comments Law, Research, Research Resource

Finding Federal Court Records for Free [Mostly!]

January 7, 2011 Craig Family History, Genealogy

“Court records” can mean literally anything of public interest filed with the courts. But some of the juiciest stuff is to be found in criminal cases and civil lawsuits. Ron Arons has an excellent book out called Wanted:US Criminal Records–Sources & Research Methodology. He describes the state and federal repositories for these records. I’ve used his book several times in the last year to successfully find criminal records for ancestors that I have been researching. I highly recommend Ron’s book.

There is however, a slight chance for the lucky among us, that we could find certain federal criminal records and civil lawsuits relevant to your research online–all free (or almost free), courtesy of good ole Uncle Sam.

Back to Basics

Whether you’re using Ron’s book, or you’re trying to find certain records online, it helps to remember your basic civics. The United States has two systems of courts: the federal courts established under the Constitution of the United States, and the state courts established under the constitutions and laws of the various states. We are concerned here with the federal courts. The Constitution says that the judiciary of the United States shall consist of “one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.” The “inferior courts” include 13 courts of appeals and 94 district courts (and some other critters known as “Article I courts,” but we will take those up at some other time).

The best way to study this pyramid is from the bottom up. Each state and territory, as well as the District of Columbia, contains one or more federal judicial districts. California for example, has four federal judicial districts: the Northern District, based in San Francisco; the Eastern District, based in Sacramento and Fresno; the Central District based in Los Angeles; and the Southern District, based in San Diego. Each of these districts has a district court, which may consist of one or more district judges, and usually one or more “subordinate” judicial officers, known as magistrate judges. These are the trial courts in the federal system: the courts of first instance. These courts are where federal judicial matters generally are first commenced (with some exceptions not relevant to our discussion here). These courts are where witnesses are heard, juries are impaneled, verdicts and judgments reached and entered.

The 94 district courts are organized into 12 judicial circuits. Each judicial circuit represents a court of appeals. For example, the Ninth Circuit, the largest of the 13 circuits [okay, now, is it 12 or 13? We'll get to that in a minute.] hears appeals from the district courts in the states of California, Arizona, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Alaska, Hawaii, as well as from the courts in Guam, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands. Most of the circuits are identified by numbers 1 through 11. We get to 13 circuits by including the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit*, which is like the other circuit courts of appeals, except that it hears appeals only from the U.S. District Court of the District of Columbia; and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which is a specialized court with jurisdiction over patent cases, claims against the federal government, certain trade disputes, and other issues. There are no district courts permanently nested within the Federal Circuit.

The graphic below shows the whole U.S. federal court system with which we are concerned.

The circuits are color-coded and within state borders, faint gray lines are visible which denote the districts within the state. For example, the close-up below depicts the 11th Circuit, comprised of the federal district courts in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia. The 11th Circuit’s main office is in Atlanta, but the appeals court has locations in each of the three states. You can also more easily see the district lines. Georgia, for example, has U.S. District Courts in its Northern, Middle, and Southern Districts.

And of course at the top of the heap is the United States Supreme Court. The Chief Justice of the United States presides not only over the Supreme Court, but is also the head of the entire federal judiciary.

Over the years, and perhaps especially during the tenure of the late Chief Justice Rehnquist, the judicial branch has made tremendous strides in unifying, modernizing, and streamlining its procedures, and access to its records by the public. One of the Rehnquist-era innovations is called PACER, which stands for “public access to court electronic records.”

PACER is a great tool for finding relatively recent federal criminal, civil, and bankruptcy filings, especially those since 1990. PACER can be found on the judicial branch’s homepage, www.uscourts.gov or on its own page, www.pacer.gov. Literally anybody in the world with an Internet connection can access PACER; you do not have to be a lawyer or a judge or in any way affiliated with the courts.

Here’s how PACER works: when attorneys file papers with the court, the papers are scanned, digitized, and organized into case files. Most federal courts have or require electronic filing of case documents. The files are posted in the Case Management/Electronic Case Filing (CM/ECF) system. PACER is essentially a public portal search into CM/ECF. We will demonstrate PACER’s search functions.

But first, a couple of caveats about federal court records and PACER. The federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. That is to say that the Constitution and Congress define e the powers of the federal courts. So, for example, you’ll find no divorce cases, no small claims cases, and generally no probate or juvenile cases in federal courts. You may find personal injury cases, but only if the opposing parties are from two different states aand the amount of money at issue is greater than $75,000. You can find federal criminal cases, bankruptcy cases, cases brought against the federal government and cases brought by the federal government against companies or individuals.

The second caveat is that most courts’ electronic records go back a very limited period of time, most commonly to the 1980s. However, many courts have case documents back into the 1950s and even the 1930s.

Using PACER

Go to the PACER homepage at www.pacer.gov. You can also reach it by clicking on the “Court Records” tab on the United States Courts web site [www.uscourts.gov]. Once at the PACER homepage, go to the “Register” tab. You will want to register for “Case Search Only.”

Anyone with access to a computer can register for a “case search only” account. There is no registration fee. However, if you download pages from PACER, the fee is eight cents per page. But the government has a policy of not invoicing the fee unless and until the fees reach $10 in any one calendar quarter; for most users, therefore, many searches will be free. You do not need a credit card to register. But if you do input credit card info, you will receive your password electronically; without a credit card, you have to wait for the Pony Express to arrive.

Once you have your PACER login and password, click on “Find a Case.” You will have two choices here: you may either search the entire PACER locator,or you can search individual court web sites, if you have an idea where the records you seek might be.

Let’s first try the PACER nationwide locator. On this page, we can see that we have the choice of which types of cases, we want to search: appellate, bankruptcy, civil, criminal, or multidistrict litigation. This last category is very rare and so we won’t go into that.

Let’s look for criminal cases involving one of my family names, Sanford. we can search all courts, if we want; or we can be more specific. Recalling that the Sanfords were primarily in the South, and more Texas, we’ll want to search the circuit that includes Texas. Looking at our map of the federal judiciary, we see that Texas is in the Fifth Circuit. So we’ll start there. We scroll down to the Fifth Circuit, under “Region.” Then we type the name Sanford in the party box, and click search. Caution: do not check the “exact match” box unless you have included a complete name consisting of at least a first and last name.

View video demo

Our search reveals 30 records of criminal cases involving parties with the name Sanford in the courts of the Fifth Circuit. In the column headed “Court,” there is a code which tells us, which court in the Fifth Circuit that particular case is pending. The code is easy to read: the first two letters are the state abbreviation and the second two letters indicate the district in the state where the case is pending. For example, the first case on the list, that of Andreko Deshan Sanford, is pending in the court identified as “msndce.” that means the Northern District of Mississippi. Going back to the US courts page, we can ascertain that the United States District Court for Northern District of Mississippi sits mainly in Oxford, but has branches in Greenville and Aberdeen.

We were looking for Texas Stanfords so we can proceed in one of several ways. We can filter these results by court by going to the filter tab, and selecting courts that began with “tx.” Or we can start a new search. This will take us back to the first page of the Pacer case locator. We’ll go under the criminal tab again. Under “Region,” we’ll scroll down to Texas without indicating a specific district.

View video demo

A search for “Sanford” this time yields 19 records in all U.S. District Courts in Texas.

For purposes of illustration, let’s choose the case of Misty Sanford (I do not know her to be one of my Sanford relatives, but who knows?). We click on her case number and we get the following page:

There is a variety of information available on this page, but most people are going to be interested in the documents in the case. To see the documents in the case, do not go to “View a document,” unless you already know the document number [most likely you won't know the document number, because you will not have seen the docket]. Instead, go to “Docket Report” and see this page:

There’s no need to enter any additional information on this page, simply sort by the drop-down menu to “Oldest Date First,” then click on “Run Report.” The following page appears:

This shows us a summary of the case against Misty Sanford. She’s charged with cruelty to animals, unlawful entry and failure to register her pets; not exactly the crimes of the century. If we scroll down further, we come to a list of documents in the case. At this point in her case there only two documents. Before we look at them, notice the box at the bottom of the page. It tells us that we’ve been charged eight cents for viewing the current page. Remember we won’t be actually be charged for this, unless our charges in this calendar quarter exceed $10. And furthermore, if a document that we pull up exceeds 30 pages, we only get charged for the first 30 pages.

The documents are numbered with hyperlinked numerals. For example, document number one in this case is called the information. This is often the first pleading in a federal criminal case. When we click on this document, we get the following page:

Note that since the document is four pages long, we been charged $0.32 for pulling it up. Click on “View Document” and a PDF version of the document appears.

We said earlier that the most common cases were from the 1980′s and 1990′s. If you are interested in the records of a specific court, check out the tab labeled “Court Information” at the top of the Pacer case locator page. A pop-box will appear giving dates of the earliest cases in that court’s electronic file.

Some of the older cases do not have the actual documents scanned in. Instead they have textual descriptions of the contents of the records. This is where you want to get Ron Arons’ book and find out where the actual records are kept.

2 comments Court Records, Courts, Law, Research, Research Note, Research Tip

Scores of Things About My Genealogical Activities

January 6, 2009 Craig Family History, Genealogy

I’m not sure who started this meme, but I first found it at Msteri’s Heritage Happens. She called it 104 Tidbits About My Genealogical Habits. It can be a good goal setting tool.

The list below should be annotated in the following manner:

Things you have already done or found: bold face type
Things you would like to do or find: italicize
Things you haven’t done or found and don’t care to: plain type

(My comments are in a different color).

Belong to a genealogical society. Several, in fact.
Researched records onsite at a court house. In Louisiana, Texas, and California.
Transcribed records. Many times
Uploaded tombstone pictures to Find-A-Grave. Yes. See here, for example.
Documented ancestors for four generations (self, parents, grandparents, great-grandparents) .
Joined Facebook.
Helped to clean up a run-down cemetery.
Joined the Genea-Bloggers Group on Facebook.
Attended a genealogy conference.
Lectured at a genealogy conference.
Spoke on a genealogy topic at a local genealogy society.
Been the editor of a genealogy society newsletter.
Contributed to a genealogy society publication.
Served on the board or as an officer of a genealogy society.
Got lost on the way to a cemetery. Tried to find Olivet Cemetery in Colma, California.
Talked to dead ancestors.
Researched outside the state in which I live. Mainly so.
Knocked on the door of an ancestral home and visited with the current occupants. I’d love to do this!
Cold called a distant relative. It was a bit intimidating at first, but turned out well.
Posted messages on a surname message board. All the time (most recently, last night).
Uploaded a gedcom file to the internet.
Googled my name. (aka The Ego Search)
Performed a random act of genealogical kindness.
Researched a non-related family, just for the fun of it.
Have been paid to do genealogical research. Not very much.
Earn a living (majority of income) from genealogical research.
Wrote a letter (or email) to a previously unknown relative. Turned out very well.
Contributed to one of the genealogy carnivals. And I’ll return more often in 2009.
Responded to messages on a message board or forum. Frequently (most recently, last night).
Was injured while on a genealogy excursion.
Participated in a genealogy meme. This one counts!
Created family history gift items (calendars, cookbooks, etc.). This year for Christmas we made ornaments with old photos in them.
Performed a record lookup for someone else.
Went on a genealogy seminar cruise.
Am convinced that a relative must have arrived here from outer space.
Found a disturbing family secret.
Told others about a disturbing family secret.
Combined genealogy with crafts (family picture quilt, scrapbooking).
Think genealogy is a passion not a hobby.
Assisted finding next of kin for a deceased person (Unclaimed Persons).
Taught someone else how to find their roots.
Lost valuable genealogy data due to a computer crash or hard drive failure.
Been overwhelmed by available genealogy technology.
Know a cousin of the 4th degree or higher.
Disproved a family myth through research. See here.
Got a family member to let you copy photos.
Used a digital camera to “copy” photos or records.
Translated a record from a foreign language. With some help. See here.
Found an immigrant ancestor’s passenger arrival record. Not yet, but some good leads exist as to Scots-Irish arrivals in South Carolina and Georgia.
Looked at census records on microfilm, not on the computer.
Used microfiche.
Visited the Family History Library in Salt Lake City.
See here

.Visited more than one LDS Family History Center. Arden-Arcade (Sacramento County), California, and Falls Church, Virginia.
Visited a church or place of worship of one of your ancestors.
Taught a class in genealogy.
Traced ancestors back to the 18th Century. My Clark line off of my Carpenter line of my Johnson line.
Traced ancestors back to the 17th Century. Ditto.
Traced ancestors back to the 16th Century. Ditto.
Can name all of your great-great-grandparents. Wish I could!
Found an ancestor’s Social Security application. See below, for one example.

My Grandmother's SS-5

Know how to determine a soundex code without the help of a computer.
Used Steve Morse’s One-Step searches. The greatest!
Own a copy of Evidence Explained by Elizabeth Shown Mills. Absolutely.
Helped someone find an ancestor using records you had never used for your own research.
Visited the main National Archives building in Washington, DC.
Visited the Library of Congress.
Have an ancestor who came over on the Mayflower.
Have an ancestor who fought in the Civil War. Several. On both sides. Below is an example.

Zeke Johnson (1847-1933) served in the 18th U.S. Colored Infantry

Taken a photograph of an ancestor’s tombstone.
Became a member of the Association of Graveyard Rabbits. Yes, right here!
Can read a church record in Latin. See here for example.
Have an ancestor who changed their name.
Joined a Rootsweb mailing list. Several.
Created a family website. Several. Currently restricted access.
Have more than one “genealogy” blog.
Was overwhelmed by the amount of family information received from someone.
Have broken through at least one brick wall.
Visited the DAR Library in Washington D.C. No, and strangely enough, I used to work right across the street for four years!
Borrowed a microfilm from the Family History Library through a local Family History Center.
Have done indexing for Family Search Indexing or another genealogy project. A joy!
Visited the Allen County Public Library Genealogy Center in Fort Wayne, Indiana.
Had an amazing serendipitous find of the “Psychic Roots” variety.
Have an ancestor who was a Patriot in the American Revolutionary War.
Have an ancestor who was a Loyalist in the American Revolutionary War.
Have both Patriot & Loyalist ancestors.
Have used Border Crossing records to locate an ancestor.
Use maps in my genealogy research.
Have a convict ancestor who was transported from the UK. Probably so. Not fully documented.
Found a bigamist amongst the ancestors.
Visited the National Archives in Kew.
Visited St. Catherine’s House in London to find family records.
Found a cousin in Australia (or other foreign country).
Consistently cite my sources. Uh, hmm, ahem . . .
Visited a foreign country (i.e. one I don’t live in) in search of ancestors.
Can locate any document in my research files within a few minutes.
Have an ancestor who was married four times (or more). How about seven times?! Yes!
Made a rubbing of an ancestors gravestone.
Organized a family reunion. I’m thinking about this.
Published a family history book
Learned of the death of a fairly close relative through research. That’s how I found out that this person had passed away. A long and complicated story.
Have done the genealogy happy dance. Oh, Yeah!
Sustained an injury doing the genealogy happy dance.
Offended a family member with my research. Unfortunately some people can’t take the truth.
Reunited someone with precious family photos or artifacts.

One comment Blogosphere, Research

Sharing the Bounty

November 6, 2007 Craig Genealogy

Over at Family Matters, Denise Olson is sharing a veritable treasure trove of genealogical on-line resources. The links she’s been posting are part of the collection at the Genealogy Research Resources Group at Diigo, a self-described “social annotation” site. I had not used Diigo until now, but it seems simple and a great way to share your discoveries. I’m sharing things that I’ve come across that may be otherwise a bit difficult to find. Check it out! And see the Genealogy Research Support Group that Denise has started at Diigo.

One comment Diigo, Research, Resources

« Older Entries