Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 8:59 am Posts: 3011 Been Liked:1003 times
Smoothedge69 wrote:
That's too bad. But it's not the judge's decision. It's the JURY's. The judge didn't just make stuff up. The jury heard the case and ruled.
In this case, it actually was the judge's decision. This was not a true jury trial. The jury's input was only advisory and not binding on anyone, including the judge.
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:11 am Posts: 1832 Location: TX Been Liked:59 times
And sadly to say that those with the most money will probably win out.
_________________ I like everyone when I first meet them. If you don't like me that's not my problem it's YOURS! A stranger is a friend you haven't met yet
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 8:22 am Posts: 6103 Been Liked:634 times
HarringtonLaw wrote:
Smoothedge69 wrote:
That's too bad. But it's not the judge's decision. It's the JURY's. The judge didn't just make stuff up. The jury heard the case and ruled.
In this case, it actually was the judge's decision. This was not a true jury trial. The jury's input was only advisory and not binding on anyone, including the judge.
Come on Jim even though the jury's function is only advisory, all of them finding against SC must have had some influence on the judge.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 204 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Come on Jim even though the jury's function is only advisory, all of them finding against SC must have had some influence on the judge.