Authored by: yorkshireman on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 05:47 PM EST |
The judge didn't pervert the jury's decision as the
foreman did.
He
simply pointed out to the attorney the reason why what
he was saying made no
sense.
By getting these comments into the record he made sure
that even
if the attorney ignored his advice and later tried
this argument with less
geeky appeal judges it was doomed to
failure (the second they read the
transcript).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 06:02 PM EST |
Don't play devil's advocate on Groklaw. Just
be for real. But your comment makes no legal
sense. Just so you know.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Ouch - but ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 07:27 PM EST
|
Authored by: calris74 on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 06:49 PM EST |
Mr. Boies had ample opportunity to refute the judge. In
Samsung v. Apple, no such opportunity existed while the jury
was behind closed doors.
What should have happened in Samsung v. Apple is the jury
should have raised a formal question in the courtroom where
the judge and lawyers could state their positions.
Your argument is moot[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 06:50 PM EST |
Bear in mind that judges are allowed and expected to do research beyond what the
lawyers tell them--especially in matters of law, of course, but also in matters
of fact.
The difference between a judge and a jury here is that a judge is expected to
know what information should be discarded as irrelevant, and what should be run
by both sets of lawyers for additional input (as we've seen judges do in both
Apple/Samsung and Oracle/Google trials.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 07:16 PM EST |
I wondered the same thing at the time the court reporters noted this. This goes
beyond looking up case law which I'd expect from a judge.
It begs the
question: can a judge also be an expert witness? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 10:32 PM EST |
The Judge is an expert in the law and is allowed to express his opinion of the
law and his opinion of the evidence when appropriate.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 27 2012 @ 11:42 PM EST |
Just because a lawyer claims knowledge isn't common doesn't make it so.
Consider this: the rangeCheck problem is identical semantically, logically, and
structurally to telling a 2-year-old not to walk off the edge of a cliff.
Does the rest of the world have to assume their own stupidity is as great as
Boies claims for himself? That this problem is beyond their capacity?
I think there's enough people who've pulled their kids back from the edge of
cliffs, or even just curbs, that the vast majority could be brought to the
understanding that this is not a genius-level problem.
Does the judge have the responsibility to ignore his own experience? To allow
the claim of stupidity to bulldoze the courtroom clear of truth?
No.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|