InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 20
Posts 153
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/11/2006

Re: brewskih post# 104391

Monday, 12/18/2006 11:32:40 AM

Monday, December 18, 2006 11:32:40 AM

Post# of 326356
From Brew...

But the most important fact of all is who decides the case, and that is the common every day people sitting on the jury with no legal back grounds in most cases. They hear both lawyers argue their case, and present what they believe to be the evidence to support their case, but the final decision comes down to who that non legally educated jury decided they want to believe.

So technically speaking the non lawyer juries are the ones that set law prescedent, in their de4cisions. Not the highly educated lawyers. All they can do is argue the existing prescedent that juries across the contry created by their verdicts.

___________________________________________________________

I really hate to butt in on this conversation (as it will likely be deleted) but the jurors are given specific instructions to use only the merits of the legal argument(s) and not any preconceived notion(s) of what they believe or do not believe or have heard prior to the case. Given that stipulation, it is indeed the lawyers ability to present new evidence or state precedence by referring to existing law that comprise argument(s) that compel the jurors to reach their verdict. The resolution of a case is based upon facts presented. It is not the burden of the attorneys to change a preconceived notion of any juror. Those issues are addressed in the jury selection process. Furthermore, if any one of the jurors were to make it through the process with a tainted notion that did not meet the criteria set in the courtroom, it would become obvious in the post trial deliberation process. That juror could possibly cause a mistrial but that juror would not be given the opportunity to re-state his/her own case in the deliberation process.


I, for one, am confident that the people involved in this litigation are smart enough to figure out that good legal representation is more important than the existing case law when it comes to setting precedence. All that we can hope for is that NeoMedia is represented by the brightest and the best. After all, it is they who will present the facts in the case, not the jurors.

HTJ