Don't feel sorry for the shills.
A few unemployed scumbags. Who
cares.
You didn't get it, did you? The appeals court may care,
since it is not the court's job to prejudice the jurors. And to let them know
who paid whom for what kind of marketing lie will be prejudicing them
when they are not allowed to look at the lies themselves and thus were not in
need of counterbiasing in the first place.
Nobody is feeling sorry for the
shills, and it would make good sense to put transparency rulings in place that
force shilling agreements in the open. But "the open" and "court-relevant
material" are two different things, and jurors are specifically prohibited to
look "in the open" for education, and the court should not be required to rely
on external sources for forming the judicial opinions.
So in my opinion it
is likely that Alsup is overreaching here, and this does not bode well for
appeals. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|