3 ms·

Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks It really irks me that some of

Page testified for about a half-hour, answering a lightning-fast round of accusatory questions from Oracle attorney Peter Bicks It really irks me that some of these lawyers, aside from having to do their job feel they have to be dicks about it too.

sotirisk 10y ago
Well in the court a lot of theatrics are in play because of their effect on certain questions/answers
- ricksplat 10y ago
  Yeah I guess - but for me it seems like the focus should be on the facts rather than theatrics. That said I have sat on a jury where the performance of the prosecuter played a pivotal role in papering over some of the mistakes in the investigation. But the guy was a perfect gentleman at all times. Innocent until proven guilty.
  - mindcrime 10y ago
    That said I have sat on a jury where the performance of the prosecuter played a pivotal role in papering over some of the mistakes in the investigation. I sat on a jury once where the behavior of the prosecutor really hurt his case, because he acted like a total dick and was demeaning and rude towards the defendant. In theory that should have nothing to do with the actual merits of the case, but people being people, it created a certain measure of sympathy for the defendant. In the end, we acquitted the guy for a number of reasons (mysteriously "missing" evidence, an incompetent investigator, perception that the investigator and victim may have lied, etc.) but the prosecutor's behavior was definitely something that all (or most) of the jurors picked up on and commented on. I believe that simple things like how the prosecutor (or the defendant) carry themselves, and how they act towards other participants in the trial, can absolutely affect the outcome of cases, at least sometimes.
- mamon 10y ago
  Which is why I am against trials with jury. Professional judges are much less likely to fall for lawyer's "bullshiting skill".
  - simonh 10y ago
    Then judges just become targets for corruption, leverage and political capture.
    - lmm 10y ago
      Sure, but there are ways around that.
    - ricksplat 10y ago
      Yep, that's the idea: You're tried by a "jury of your peers" so you can't claim that you were fitted out by the aristocracy ... at least in theory
  - sievebrain 10y ago
    That seems like a stretch. Judges routinely make questionable rulings. Heck, in this case Alsup did a great job in the first (jury) trial .... and then Oracle appealed and the original decision, which I thought was right, was overturned by judges.
Morgawr 10y ago
How are they "being dicks"? It's their job, they have to ask questions and find cracks within the legal system to prove their point. That's literally their job, no more, no less.
- ricksplat 10y ago
  I would contend that finding cracks doesn't lead to as many successful convictions as people think it does - and probably leads to a great many wrongful ones. Focus should be on the facts. It's also an approach that puts those who are better at concealing these cracks (think sociopaths; Bundy) at an advantage.

sotirisk 10y ago

Well in the court a lot of theatrics are in play because of their effect on certain questions/answers

ricksplat 10y ago
Yeah I guess - but for me it seems like the focus should be on the facts rather than theatrics. That said I have sat on a jury where the performance of the prosecuter played a pivotal role in papering over some of the mistakes in the investigation. But the guy was a perfect gentleman at all times. Innocent until proven guilty.
- mindcrime 10y ago
  That said I have sat on a jury where the performance of the prosecuter played a pivotal role in papering over some of the mistakes in the investigation. I sat on a jury once where the behavior of the prosecutor really hurt his case, because he acted like a total dick and was demeaning and rude towards the defendant. In theory that should have nothing to do with the actual merits of the case, but people being people, it created a certain measure of sympathy for the defendant. In the end, we acquitted the guy for a number of reasons (mysteriously "missing" evidence, an incompetent investigator, perception that the investigator and victim may have lied, etc.) but the prosecutor's behavior was definitely something that all (or most) of the jurors picked up on and commented on. I believe that simple things like how the prosecutor (or the defendant) carry themselves, and how they act towards other participants in the trial, can absolutely affect the outcome of cases, at least sometimes.
mamon 10y ago
Which is why I am against trials with jury. Professional judges are much less likely to fall for lawyer's "bullshiting skill".
- simonh 10y ago
  Then judges just become targets for corruption, leverage and political capture.
  - lmm 10y ago
    Sure, but there are ways around that.
  - ricksplat 10y ago
    Yep, that's the idea: You're tried by a "jury of your peers" so you can't claim that you were fitted out by the aristocracy ... at least in theory
- sievebrain 10y ago
  That seems like a stretch. Judges routinely make questionable rulings. Heck, in this case Alsup did a great job in the first (jury) trial .... and then Oracle appealed and the original decision, which I thought was right, was overturned by judges.

Morgawr 10y ago

How are they "being dicks"? It's their job, they have to ask questions and find cracks within the legal system to prove their point. That's literally their job, no more, no less.

ricksplat 10y ago
I would contend that finding cracks doesn't lead to as many successful convictions as people think it does - and probably leads to a great many wrongful ones. Focus should be on the facts. It's also an approach that puts those who are better at concealing these cracks (think sociopaths; Bundy) at an advantage.