|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT |
I recall a few instances in this trial where parties were allowed to introduce
"new" evidence through impeaching the opposition witnesses. If this
goes to show that an expert witness is lying on the stand about past events; it
might be let in.
Of course IANAL and all ;), just observations from the current case.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Wol on Sunday, May 20 2012 @ 01:52 PM EDT |
What's the situation where the Judge told the parties to "advise him of any
contrary view they may have taken in the past"?
Surely even at this late stage Google can file a motion "bringing to the
Judge's attention this 2006 paper"?
That is, of course, assuming that the Judge isn't personally or by proxy
following Groklaw. But such a motion would at least bring the paper into the
trial record. And I can't see the Judge objecting to Google entering something
that he *ex*plicitly told Oracle to enter ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|