decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Lay Opinion | 394 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Lay Opinion
Authored by: DieterWasDriving on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:29 PM EDT
A decision maker may offer useful testimony about their understanding of the
legal situation at the time a decision was made. It's not a legal conclusion,
or describing the law, but informs the jury about their motives.

A party uninvolved at the time doesn't have anything useful to add to the legal
situation. The court especially doesn't want to hear legal speculation or
conclusions (or guesses) from non-attorneys.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Lay Opinion
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 06:51 PM EDT

Yes, I knew that. My comment was that I don't understand how the court determines what lay opinions it will allow and what are dismissed as "not a lawyer", "not an expert witness", or "hearsay".

Day 2: Second witness, Larry Ellison live

Oracle: Is it necessary to use the Sun API to run the Java programming language?

Google: Objection, calls for expert testimony.

Judge to Ellison: Do you know the answer to the question, from your own personal knowledge?

Ellison: Yes.

Judge: Overruled.

Day 5: Cross-examination of Brian Swetland by Google counsel Christa Anderson

Google: Regarding Danger taking a license from Sun, what was your understanding?

Oracle: Objection, hearsay.

Judge Alsup: Sustained.

Google: [ tries again ]

Oracle: Objection.

Judge Alsup: You know that I don't like that question [ when the witness has no direct knowledge ]… [ warns Oracle that they ] will have to live with that rule, too.
What happens only a couple of minutes later, Oracle tries the same: Redirect of Brian Swetland, by Mr. Norton for Oracle
Oracle: Whether you were scarred by the Danger experience or not, you know that Danger took a license?

Google: Objection, hearsay.

[ back and forth among Judge Alsup, Oracle and Google regarding this ]

Day 6: Cross examination of Bob Lee

Google: When someone contributes something to the JCP, can that person contribute to Java and also make it free for everything to use?

Bob Lee: Absolutely.

[Oracle objection. Sustained. He's not a lawyer.]
...

Google: These licenses - as a software engineer - can they be applicable to API packages?

Oracle objection.

Judge Alsup: Is he an expert witness?

Google: No, he's not.

Judge Alsup: I think this is specialized knowledge.

Google: But this is facts.

Judge Alsup: No, it's not.

IIRC there are similar examples, but I can't put my finger on them. This seems to me to exemplify the court as a theatre for the lawyers to perform, and the witnesses are only pawns. Mirror_slap's piquant descriptions of the jury have me anticipating Tenniel's courtroom denouement.



[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Lay Opinion - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 08:49 PM EDT
    • Lay Opinion - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 25 2012 @ 10:15 PM EDT
    • Rule 50 - Authored by: eachus on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT
      • Clicky Rule 50 - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 26 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )