3 ms·
They're testifying as expert witnesses, being brought in to be informative to the jury, not as first-hand witnesses to the law suit matter. In theory such exper
by ysavir 5y ago
They're testifying as expert witnesses, being brought in to be informative to the jury, not as first-hand witnesses to the law suit matter. In theory such experts should be objective and not have a bias towards either defendant or the plaintiff.
- klyrs 5y agoYour arguments here are a bit peculiar. Have you integrated the judge's response to the situation, where he not only ruled that there was no conflict of interest, but mentioned that the university's actions may constitute felony witness intimidation?
- ysavir 5y agoI didn't see the judge's response, so no. Though another commenter here mentioned it was the plaintiff that called for these people as expert witnesses (another fact I missed), which is also relevant. And I agree with the judge's take on the university's actions. My intention with this thread wasn't to take a side or defend the university. My intention was to point out how having these specific people as expert witnesses could be seen as a conflict of interest (as compared to, say, expert witnesses that have no relation whatsoever to either party in the suit). This was in response to the people interpreting the situation strictly as "don't oppose the government". The university's actions were abhorrent, but the seed of their concern isn't necessarily invalid.
- frankharv 5y agoThey are being "Brought in" or were they paid to come in? Many employers regulate the ability to work side jobs. This is known as an employment contract. This is especially true when it is related to your regular work.