On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 13:01, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 Feb 2009, Charles Reiss wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 12:41, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>> (d) deliberately does not care about what the defendent actually
>> thinks, only what e could have thought. Therefore, there is no reason
>> to consider the defendent's admission in deciding whether it is
>> acceptable.
>
> Um, IIRC I wrote (d), and I beg to differ on it what it deliberately
> cares about. -G.
Looking at the archives, I guess you probably did. But I don't know
how else you expected people to interpret a change from the old
wording ("UNAWARE, appropriate if the defendant reasonably believed
that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule") to one that
uses "could have". And, well, I think it's an improvement.
- woggle
