|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 05:25 PM EST |
I mostly agree with you. I would make the following points-
1. I respect the fact that you grokked the single most
important point out of all this, which is the difference
between what random commenters care about and what is
legally relevant (or, as you put it, admissible). While I
think the analysis in the order is a little more nuanced, I
think that as a preliminary issue, one could say that most
of it is dicta, as all of these statements are inadmissible
under 606.
2. What you're touching on is that many legal rules are
written for the value of the rule in the aggregate (think of
it like rule-based utilitarianism, if you want). Here's an
easy example- why do we have protection for lawyer-client
communications? Aren't there times when it would be really
awesome for a lawyer to blab about his client? Well, sure.
But if we weakened the rule, then clients wouldn't talk to
their lawyers, and it would be a net bad thing. Same with
jury verdicts. We don't want to encourage litigation over
what transpires in the jury room; it's supposed to be a
black box. If we start allowing litigation after verdicts
over the jury, it would never end.
3. Many people say that juries might not be the best thing
in the world for extremely complex issue (med mal, mass
torts, patents etc.). They may have a point.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
