|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 01:58 AM EDT |
If the Jury instruction suggests something and then the Jury's decision confirms
it then this is harder to appeal on this point later. If the Judge just makes a
Matter Of Law decision then this would be easier to appeal.
So The Judge would be trying to make the outcome follow his view of the law and
the facts involved and to make it as hard as possible for someone to change the
end decision on appeal later.
This is why even some things the Judge may view as a forgone conclusion will
still be put to the jury.
Imagine if the Judge just decided that Oracle was going to lose right now and
the patents and copyrights were all worthless and decided it now with no more
Jury deliberation. Oracle would easily appeal this decision and we would have
achieved nothing.
Michael[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:50 AM EDT |
You guys are certainly hard to please.
: )
Before the trial, there were many comments about
how a jury that has no techies on it can't get it
right.
Now, you say that the jury's decisions must
be sacred.
But the law *knows* that sometimes juries make
mistakes, so there is a process for dealing with
that. Ditto with the judge, when he makes
mistakes. This is just a human system, you
know, implemented by mere humans. You want
it to consider mistakes. The jury doesn't
know the law the way a judge does. That's a
given, so if he sees a mistake, he can
correct it.
I think in this case, it's the judge that
made the mistake, and that is what appeals
are for.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|