|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 24 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
Maybe judge and jury expected (realised?) this case was always going to be
appealed, so did not want to waste their own time on it? Also, make a few silly
findings to ensure the appeal. This would align with the judge's strict
adherence to short schedule, and the quick verdict.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: complex_number on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT |
There have been a few Fraud cases here in the UK that went on for several months
that resulted in the Jury being unable to reach a verdict.
These cases can get horribly complex and the average lay person is totally ill
equipped to comprehend what is being presented to them by the witnesses.
If you watch US Courtroom dramas on TV you will often hear the judge admonish
the Lawyers and telling them to get a move on.
Having a speedy trial keeps the court backlogs down to a minimum as well as
makes sure that the fact that have been presented in the case are easily
remembered by the jurors when it comes to their decision making.
If you have a long trial the lawyers will stage the witnesses so that the
'stars' appear right at the end. Short trials don't need that ploy. We see
enough 'acting' by the lawyers anyway.
I don't think it is bias at all.
In this case I think we will all be back in this courtroom in 2yrs time for a
retrial.
---
Ubuntu & 'apt-get' are not the answer to Life, The Universe & Everything which
is of course, "42" or is it 1.618?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 08:54 PM EDT |
If I was in the jury I would have ticked 'yes' to all the boxes and awarded both
sides $1.01 in damages. This is what you do when you are given a 700-point
ruling to make in a few days.
The jury missed such a possibility to tell everyone to piss off, what a shame. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
