|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 04:45 PM EDT |
so they get it and can showboat when it doesn't mean a thing. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bugstomper on Tuesday, April 17 2012 @ 06:03 PM EDT |
My IANAL understanding is that it is something like this: The jury has to decide
whether we are dealing with fact pattern A or fact pattern B. Then the judge has
to decide what the law is for whichever fact pattern has been decided by the
jury. He is not going to go through the process of deciding new case law for
both A and B in advance of knowing which it is. He does know that in either case
there is a decision to be made that he has not yet made.
This is in contrast to a more clear cut case in which the judge could say
"Given undisputed facts X, Y and Z, The law says that if A is true the
plaintiff wins and if the contrary B is true then the defendant wins. A or B is
a matter of fact which has to be decided by the jury".[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|