|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 08:55 AM EST |
I thought the USA's legal system was built on following procedure to the letter? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, November 20 2012 @ 11:53 AM EST |
Substance matters. Procedure matters. In civil litigation
(especially), procedure can sometimes trump.
Think of it in these terms. Any system of justice has to
balance several competing interests- truth, fairness, and
finality. And the rules (procedure) are designed with those
interests in mind.
Finality is a big factor. Otherwise, litigation would go on
forever. When attacking a jury verdict (using a post-trial
JMOL/JNOV), a party is severely constrained in how it may do
so. It's not a "do over". You don't get to say "But yer
honor, there's all this other evidence that we'd like to
introduce now!" That's not the reason for this motion.
The purpose of this motion is that, even with the evidence
adduced at the trial, the any reasonable jury would have
found in your favor (not this jury).
So to go to your examples, it's not enough for Samsung to
show that the house is burning now. They had to show that
the house was burning when the jury was deliberating, and
that any reasonable jury would have noticed it, and left.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|