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
I agree, but... | 400 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I agree, but...
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 02:56 AM EDT
Wait, though, for any motions that mention the
points made today (Mr. X admitted Y) or in
the closing statement, and you'll see how
they will use it. The exultation was because
he got something he thinks he can use. The
witness rarely knows what the "wrong" answer
is in such a scenario, but the lawyer does.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

I agree, but...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 12 2012 @ 09:44 AM EDT
My thoughts here are that the jury are no more technical experts than the
judge or lawyers. They do know they are here to render a verdict on a legal
case, and if it is in front of them in court, there is probably a real case to
try.
If the prosecuting lawyers asks a lot of questions with obvious answers (to the

technical expert) that are essentially irrelevant to the case in question - the

technical expert will look unsure, not understanding the *relevance* of the
question, and the jury sees an witness for the defense looking uncertain of
their testimony, and a triumphant prosecution lawyer who sure *must* have
proved something. We don't understand what is happening, but the language
is clear, the lawyer is winning!

If you have a case with no technical merit, this may actually seem a
reasonable gambit to play - remember, you don't have to actually be correct
to win the case, you merely need to convince a jury of non-experts that you
are correct, or more likely correct than the view presented by the opposing
lawyers.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )