Matters of Law are supposed to be for the Judge to decide with only matters
of fact going to a Jury decision.
I would think if a matter can be
cleared up by Law, there is absolutely no need for a Jury to even play a
role.
Let the Law apply where it is applicable! Why involve a roll of
the dice wherein you let a Jury decide which facts to believe in - perhaps which
silver tongue to believe in over the actual facts?
The Novel vs MS
case:
It was a single member of the Jury that decided: even though MS was
guilty, it was unknown whether MS actually financially harmed Novel
Why
risk an unknown factor if you can avoid it?
As for "an issue for appeal"
- SCOG taught me: it doesn't matter, if someone is going to push their position
no matter how unlikely and/or unreasonable they will do so no matter what. The
"Pants Suit Judge" is another example of that.
Is it an appropriate case
for a Jury to decide if an element for the case was needed but never proven? I
would think not. And I think that's embodied in the Law having a Rule
50:
Rule 50. Judgment as a Matter of Law in a Jury
Trial
(a) Judgment as a Matter of
Law.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|