|
|
|
| Authored by: webster on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:11 PM EDT |
.
... usually go with their sentiments. You have lawyers and experts on both
sides who disagree. The jurors who have been carefully screened for bias,
knowledge, and persuasive powers, are now asked to pick between them. They are
not experts in this technically complex field, so they must pick the side who
"seems" to be telling the truth or who is "right." They
should send a note asking for a panel of independent experts since they are not
qualified in the field at issue. Victory frequently goes to the wealthy side
that retains the sexiest experts to keep them from the other side.
.
.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:21 PM EDT |
Sadly, they excluded anyone technical or Oracle would've been laughed out of the
courtroom a long time ago.
I wish the Oracle holdout had been dismissed. And I hope that it is an Oracle
holdout, because I can't imagine very many intelligent people getting hoodwinked
by this, but they do have slick lawyers and I wasn't there, so I might be
disappointed.
Why can't juries be of our actual peers? One might think that juries of doctors
would be best equipped to handle malpractice cases, or that juries of techies
might best be able to handle technical cases like this.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
You have two experts here who disagree completely, mostly because Oracle's
expert is full of you-know-what.
They've been asked to figure out who to believe, so it's not that unreasonable
to have some people believe one guy and others believe the other guy, given that
probably nobody in there is technical enough to know who is lying.
I picture a bunch of jurors going back and forth between "it's not
simulated execution, it's pattern matching" and "the other guy said
that it can include pattern matching" while trying to figure out who to
believe.
In short, we have a skilled liar vs. someone telling the truth and we're asking
people who to trust. It's not that surprising if some people get hoodwinked.
That makes it sad, disappointing and frustrating, but not at all surprising.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, May 18 2012 @ 07:31 PM EDT |
when he set the time limits (or any time limit at all) for the trial.
Yes I know WHY he did it, but it has still screwed up the first two phases of
the trial.
In both cases the jury is facing complex involved technical fact sets, without
having a technical background.
What the jury needed was an extended tutorial of the technologies in question.
But because of the time limits on each phase of the trial, they didn't get
that.
As a result, they're in the jury room, rolling dice, or some equivalent, to try
to get a verdict. Its not fair to the jury, nor to anybody else.
What the judge should have done was pick his own expert(s) from the local
colleges/universities to explain the common background technology to the jury.
Yes the lawyers would have had a say about who and what, but these would be the
judges (and jury's) experts.
Otherwise the judge should have greatly extended the timeframes for the trial to
allow the parties to (each) present their versions of the technical background.
An adversarial jurisprudence that uses lay decision-makers cannot do
technological litigation on the quick and dirty. It doesn't work.
The judge got too cute by half, and now we all are going to pay.
Not a lawyer
or a judge
JG [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 12:27 AM EDT |
If only six jurors are needed, why can't they ask the hold outs to be dismissed
for being uncooperative, failing to articulate their objection, unwillingness to
reason, trolling, takes the "devils advocate" role a little too far,
etc?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, May 19 2012 @ 01:44 AM EDT |
After evidence is presented, jurors should be given opportunity to ask questions
(in writing of course) and the answer given only to them. Then they should cast
their vote to the judge in secret.
How is justice served by deliberating amongst themselves? Anybody know the
historical perspective on this? Has this ever been challenged? Are there
scholarly texts on this matter.
I frankly don't see how one juror persuading another serves justice. I don't
see how a "correct" verdict is more likely than not is reached by
deliberating. I mean the point of a jury is because a decision is not possible
as a matter of law. Therefore, we don't know the "correct" verdict
anyway and the jury's decision is as good as anybody else as far as
"correctness". So, one juror persuading another will have anything to
do with that juror possessing special knowledge about what a correct verdict
should be and only "tainted" another jurors thinking. Why should that
be allowed.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
