|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 05:00 PM EDT |
| But it seems most of their arguments in the 50(b) are fact-based... [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jez_f on Thursday, June 28 2012 @ 07:31 AM EDT |
I have followed SCO all the way, and now this case. This has to be one of the
most underhand tactics I have seen.
I would understand if there were elements in the trial that could be appealed
on. Jury instructions, or objections that were or were not overridden. Basically
saying the Judge messed up so we think we deserve another hearing. That makes
sense and I can see that it is an important part of the legal system.
But this seems to be essentially filing something that you know will be rejected
so that you can then use it as basis for appeal. Because there is nothing of
substance in the original trial to appeal on. Essentially trying to re open
everything because you forced the judge to rule on it as a matter of law, even
after the Jury had decided. If a party can do this, then why bother with a trial
in the first place.
I am sure it is a perfectly legitimate tactic, most of them are but it is one of
the least ethical I have seen. And that is saying something. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
