|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, July 17 2012 @ 11:34 AM EDT |
It [judge overturning a jury] happens on a fairly
regular basis.
Where is the data to support this
statement?
All around you. Pay attention. Google is your
friend.
Judges are trained to think in legal terms
so they occasionally do a better job than a jury (or the spectators)
do.
Not relevant. It is the job of the jury to make findings of
fact.
It's very relevant. Judges can see what evidence is legally
irrelevant, but prejudicial, for example. Ultimately, they can determine when
it's legally appropriate to overrule a jury's decision. I'd say that's relevant.
:D
It's obviously hypocritical to accept a judge
doing it when things work out they way you prefer, yet act outraged just because
a judge did it in a way you don't like.
Um, Judge Alsup ruled
against Google. Of course, he did. I said so. After predicting a
huge win, Oracle didn't even bother asking for damages at the end of the trial.
That seemed to match many people's preferences. What was your point?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|