|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 06:51 AM EDT |
If your opinion about the law is correct, the right to appeal is meaningless.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 07:14 AM EDT |
If Samsung had started this fight, then maybe you would be right.
But remember that they're the attacked here, not the attacker.
If you were up for murder, and you only managed to find the proof that you were
innocent at the 13th hour, how would you feel?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 07:26 AM EDT |
| . [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 11:55 AM EDT |
I think what PJ was saying was:
1. Samsung was denied the use of certain materials during the trial
2. Samsung wants to appeal it, and show what materials were not allowed
3. Apple wants to block the use of materials during the *appeal*
But ... how do you block materials from an appeal ... when you don't even know
what they are in the first place!!!![ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT |
This is totally wrong information.
The purpose of an appeal is to ask the appellate
court if the originating court got things right,
such as was it right to exclude certain evidence?
If you can't include it because the lower court
ruled it was too late, it means there is no valid
appeal, in that the appeals court is forced to
accept at least the lower court's decision on
what evidence the jury could see, and that would
negate the very idea of an appeal.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, September 07 2012 @ 06:42 PM EDT |
If I remember correctly, the reason to exclude them was timeliness.
The reason they were excluded is irrelevant, since -- as Samsung
brief notes -- it is required under the Federal Rules of Evidence to make
a proffer of the excluded evidence in order to challenge an order excluding
evidence, independently of the reason the evidence was
excluded.
The decision whether to retry because of exclusion would
then be independent from the actual content of the materials
As I
understand it, the standard for a retrial is not merely that an error occurred,
but that it was material. The materiality of an erroneous exclusion of evidence
is not independent of the content of the evidence.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
