I recently referenced some comments I wrote concerning a NYT article on a Bronx judge's holding that turned out to be partly based on mistaken facts. He allowed for a limited exception to the requirement of actual face to face testimony when certain 911 tapes are involved. The actual tape in question was not of the witness, however, and the case for various reasons was ultimately dropped.
As noted by Discourse.net, this reliance on questionable facts is not only far from uncommon, but is not necessarily problematic. After all, the ruling decides a matter of law, which future courts can apply to their own facts. And, this particular case has become rather useful nationwide. For instance, as someone apparently familiar with the situation informed me, in this particular case it was "the tape or nothing," since local policy is not to force nonconsenting victims of domestic violence to testify.
Though this sort of thing does happen a lot, it's useful to note as well that judges often are motivated by certain facts when deciding the law. They might decide things differently, rightly or wrongly, if the facts were different. The facts are sort of a thumb on the scales, so to speak, especially when using certain "tests" that are a bit arbitrary. Judges are known for writing opinions that lean the facts a certain way, which also influences how the judgment is accepted by the public at large. For the specific litigants, this arguably might lead to some unjust results in specific circumstances.
Also, the specific facts in this particular case underlines the value of actual testimony, given the tape in fact was not of the person it was assumed to be. The net result of the case made the problem somewhat moot, but it does provide a warning all the same. A causal reader of the opinion might feel it a good case for limiting a too strong reading of certain constitutional commands, but one who knows the whole story might have a somewhat different view of the situation.
Fine article all around (Discourse.net provides a link), and a search has determined the writer not only has a lovely name, but a lovely ability to write interesting articles. The general public needs such articles to get a better flavor of the complexities of the law.