|
|
|
| Authored by: dio gratia on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT |
No time to rehearse.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 11:02 PM EDT |
5 minutes each addressing the jurors' instant question was not going to fix the
underlying lack of technical background.
Especially because Oracle's cases DEPENDED on what was technical flimflam.
I know WHY the judge limited the case times, but that doesn't make it right.
The jury has to rely on the judge to get them a clean case to decide.
If its a complicated case the judge has two alternatives: a) take as much time
as it takes to get all the facts including the background technical stuff
through the traditional testimonial evidence; or b) shorten the trial by (new)
non-traditional methods of taking background evidence.
But he can't just arbitrarily truncate the evidentiary proceeding and expect the
jury to fix the resulting problem.
So, I accuse: The judge botched it.
Not a lawyer
JG [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 03:10 AM EDT |
*We* know that Oracle declined - and forced Google to not
explain either - but the jury don't.
Oracle's case very much depends on them being kept confused
about technical matters, especially where technical language
has both precise and vague meanings. It isn't suprising
that, when given the option, Oracle chooses to treat them
like mushrooms.
But the jury only know that they need to know more, and that
no-one is telling them - and they don't know *why* no-one is
telling them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
