4 ms·
I can give you the general answer to that: At the trial stage, you can argue matters of fact. Stuff like "my client was at home in bed when the events occurre
by Lazare 14y ago
I can give you the general answer to that:
At the trial stage, you can argue matters of fact. Stuff like "my client was at home in bed when the events occurred" or "those teeth marks don't evem match his dog!"
Since we are now at the appeal stage, barring something huge, all the facts the trial court decided were true have to be assumed true. So he can't now argue that Weev didn't actually access AT&Ts servers. All he can discuss now is whether the court correctly applied the law to the facts it determined at trial, and that means...
...that it won't hamper Kerr at all. The facts here aren't disputed; everyone agrees on what Weev did, how AT&Ts servers were configured, where Weev was, where the servers were, how AT&T responded to the breach. The dispute is entirely down to how the court applied the law (or indeed, whether it was even in the right court), and that's stuff which is best addressed (in some ways, only addressable) at the appeal level.
TL;DR: It doesn't make Kerr's job harder at all; in fact he can only do his job at the appeal stage, as his concerns are very much with the trial courts decision, not with the facts the court based that decision on.
- redthrowaway 14y agoSo if the Appeals court can only decide if the law was applied correctly, does that mean it would have to go to the Supreme Court in order to determine if the law is constitutional?
- DannyBee 14y agoAppeals courts can determine whether a law is constitutional. However, all courts strongly prefer not to if they can.
- Lazare 14y agoNo, any court can - in theory - declare a law or its application unconstitutional, but the lower courts are very reluctant to do so, and even appeals courts prefer to only do so in bright line cases. And I don't think this is; even if the court has grave reservations about the law, they'll likely punt and hope the Supreme Court figures it out.
- mcherm 14y agoNo, any court can decide if the law is applied correctly or decide that a law is unconstitutional -- in fact, the lowest level of court can overturn any law. They are, however, required to apply the law correctly, including follow precedent set by any courts superior to them. Normally appeals courts only handle the question of whether the lower court applied the law correctly, and assume that the lower court interpreted the facts right. This is because normally (there are a few VERY rare exceptions) it is not legally permitted to appeal on the grounds that the court or the jury got the facts wrong... only on the grounds that the law was applied incorrectly.
- rayiner 14y agoMy only addition would be that things like what Weev's state of mind was when he did these things are matters of fact that will be assumed true on appeal. So in addition to "he didn't actually access the servers" you also can't argue "he didn't really intend to do this or that."