|
|
|
| Authored by: soronlin on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 03:02 AM EDT |
I would tend to agree with you.
But so far as I can tell, (IANAL and so can't research fully,) this has never
happened in a federal civil case.
There are several cases where mistrials and/or contempt proceedings have been
triggered before the verdict. There are precious few even in state or criminal
cases where it has happened after the verdict.
So as PJ said, we will have to wait and see; this is new ground. If I was
Samsung I would want to make a motion regarding it to be heard in December,
because the indications are that an appeal court wont hear it as new evidence.
(But even that supposition is based on Californian state procedure.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 08:05 AM EDT |
<blockquote>I think to some degree the courts should listen to public
opinion when clarifying the rules in such cases. </blockquote>
This is precisely what SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. The judicial branch of the federal
government was setup in the constitution specifically to be objective and
impartial, and to apply the law fairly and evenly to all, no matter who that
person is or what the "public opinion" about a particular person or
situation is. Judges apply the law. If you don't like the law, don't pressure
the judge, put pressure on your legislators to make new law. If the law that you
want violates someone's constitutional rights, the courts should strike it down,
no matter how many people like the new law. If you don't like a particular
constitutional right, try to get an amendment written, approved by congress and
then ratified by 2/3 of the states.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
