5 ms·

Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. It is the Northern district Court of california. Thus precedents mean

Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. It is the Northern district Court of california. Thus precedents mean nothing and Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions.

loaph 3y ago
Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law. Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions. Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
  - GabrielTFS 3y ago
    This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment. I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering). The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.
    - dllthomas 3y ago
      How did whether juries are punished become germane? I thought the question at issue was just consistency vs capriciousness of the courts taken as a whole.
    - loaph 3y ago
      This was my intended meaning, thank you! I wanted to point out that juries can make arbitrary decisions, nullification being a kind of example of this.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. I dunno, the fact that precedent is only binding when it is from a higher appellate court to a court subordinate to that appellate court isn't what I'd describe as "funny", just rather sensible. > Thus precedents mean nothing Not that I've seen any inconsistent legal ruling offered between the two cases. The fact that the broad outline of the case is similar doesn't mean the decisive legal questions are, but, yes, precedent from a trial court decision isn't binding (same or different court), only, at best, persuasive, and then only if it is a citable (published) decision in the first place, which most trial court decisions are not. > Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions. Well, no, the jury is "free" to give answers that the trial judge finds to be reasonably supported by the evidence to the questions the trial judge poses to the jury. And that's not directly affected by precedent anyway, precedent only governs questions of law, not fact, and juries don't answer questions of law, only fact.
- pankajdoharey 3y ago
  Well 20 Yrs ago, Microsoft faced an Anti trust lawsuit in Federal court for shipping a browser, now Apple and Google both ship with a ton of software not just browser and restrict users from installing the software of their choice, yet Apple seems to be not facing any backlash. While Google lost for the same cause. This seems not only arbitrary but also shows the weakness in US court system and Arbitration by a Jury. The anti trust lawsuit against Microsoft could be a precedent for a case against both Apple and Google.

loaph 3y ago

Juries are free to give arbitrary decisions, that is unrelated to precedent, which has more to do with how a judge interpreted a law. Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions.

dragonwriter 3y ago
> Lookup "jury nullification" if you're curious to learn more about juries giving arbitrary decisions. Nullification only applies to criminal cases (the discussion here is about civil, not criminal, law) and only in one direction. Lookup "directed verdict of acquittal", "judgement as a matter of law", and "judgement non obstante veredicto".
- GabrielTFS 3y ago
  This is true in one sense (that the jury doesn't always have the final word) but does not seem to actually argue against the point made in loaph's comment. I think what loaph is saying is that a jury, when making a decision, can make any decision it wants, without consequences (except in exceptional cases, e.g. jury tampering). The jury might never get to actually make a decision, and a guilty verdict can be overruled by a judgment notwithstanding the verdict (or as a result of an appeal, etc.), but legally, when a jury has made a decision, they can't be punished for making it, even if they were unreasonable in reaching that verdict.
  - dllthomas 3y ago
    How did whether juries are punished become germane? I thought the question at issue was just consistency vs capriciousness of the courts taken as a whole.
  - loaph 3y ago
    This was my intended meaning, thank you! I wanted to point out that juries can make arbitrary decisions, nullification being a kind of example of this.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> Its funny how "binding precedent" doesnt apply to the same court that gave both decisions. I dunno, the fact that precedent is only binding when it is from a higher appellate court to a court subordinate to that appellate court isn't what I'd describe as "funny", just rather sensible. > Thus precedents mean nothing Not that I've seen any inconsistent legal ruling offered between the two cases. The fact that the broad outline of the case is similar doesn't mean the decisive legal questions are, but, yes, precedent from a trial court decision isn't binding (same or different court), only, at best, persuasive, and then only if it is a citable (published) decision in the first place, which most trial court decisions are not. > Jury is free to give arbitrary decisions. Well, no, the jury is "free" to give answers that the trial judge finds to be reasonably supported by the evidence to the questions the trial judge poses to the jury. And that's not directly affected by precedent anyway, precedent only governs questions of law, not fact, and juries don't answer questions of law, only fact.

pankajdoharey 3y ago
Well 20 Yrs ago, Microsoft faced an Anti trust lawsuit in Federal court for shipping a browser, now Apple and Google both ship with a ton of software not just browser and restrict users from installing the software of their choice, yet Apple seems to be not facing any backlash. While Google lost for the same cause. This seems not only arbitrary but also shows the weakness in US court system and Arbitration by a Jury. The anti trust lawsuit against Microsoft could be a precedent for a case against both Apple and Google.