I've been involved in a number of Product Litigation trials. My experience
over the last 18 years is that in such trials it wasn't necessarily the
facts that won or lost the trial, but rather it was the story spun by the
lawyers & their supporting casts. Facts are not ignored but they have little
impact on the outcome. Witness crediability is also an important factor in
the outcome of a jury trial.
I have a much more positive feel about bench trials (the judge is the sole
determining power - no jury involved). Judges are much more able to cut
through the story telling and get to the determining facts.
YMMV
Kenneth Waller
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom C" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
Well let's just say I've been a defendant in a civil case and endured a
jury trial. I won. It was apparent, by the judge's actions, words, and
demeanor throughout the trial, that if it was up to him, I would not have
won. If I had not been able to retain representation that was competent in
the legal issues of concern, I may not have won.
Jury trials are far from perfect, but one *might* have a chance of
fair-minded jurors seeing to it that justice is served, or that at least a
fair-minded verdict is delivered. With a judge (a civil servant and
therefore an "arm of the law") the chances are pretty much reduced to
50/50 based on the views and opinions of one person.
It gets worse when the accusing party is an arm of the government, the
same government of which the judicial branch is an arm, and the judge
knows the accusing party on a regular first name basis.
Tom C.
--- "P. J. Alling" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I don't know about that, I expect that real justice is a likely
> either
> way. Juries can be capricious, so can judges. The system doesn't
> even
> try to guarantee justice by the way, only process.
>
> Tom C wrote:
>
> > Don't think my earlier comments meant I have faith in the justice
> > system(s). It's just that one probably stands a better chance of
> > justice (statistically) if their case is heard by a jury than by a
> > judge, or any other single person.
> >
> > Tom C.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >> Reply-To: [email protected]
> >> To: <[email protected]>
> >> Subject: RE: Vigilant or Bloody Minded
> >> Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2006 21:46:58 -0000
> >>
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: Cotty [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >
> >> > >and when you castrate an innocent person, how will you put his
> balls
> >> > >back on?
> >> >
> >> > Someone proven by the courts to be guilty is likely to be
> >> > guilty.
> >>
> >>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2001/life_of_crime/misca
>
> >>
> >> rriages.stm
> >>
> >> > I'm happy with the risk he might be innocent. Balls away!
> >>
> >> ...until it's you, or your son, presumably.
> >>
> >> Bob
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> When you're worried or in doubt,
> Run in circles, (scream and shout).
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
