5 ms·

Regardless of whether or not her opinion turns out to be unwavering/correct, I find it crazy that a judge would expose her bias before the trial starts. Is this

Regardless of whether or not her opinion turns out to be unwavering/correct, I find it crazy that a judge would expose her bias before the trial starts. Is this common?

pyre 13y ago
I don't believe that they are required to recuse themselves[1], but if there was a bias, it probably makes an appeal easier. [1] A good example was when Jack Thompson (personally) sued one of the judges that was hearing a case he had. The judge was not required to recuse himself, even with the possible conflict of interest, because this would effectively allow someone to 'choose a new judge' by suing the judge they didn't like.
Vivtek 13y ago
The article does state it's an unusual move.
- DannyBee 13y ago
  The article is wrong. It happens all the time, and is perfectly normal. First, let's get over the idea that any talking about a view before the trial is wrong. They have submitted mountains of evidence. The judge already knows what the experts are going to say on both sides, etc. The judge has to have an opinion on how the case will turn out to rule on various motions. It's perfectly normal for a judge to say "After reading these motions, and the evidence, here is my view ...". This tends to encourage parties to settle, rather than continue to waste the courts time. To put it simply: Having an opinion based on the evidence and law so far is not bias. Sharing that opinion with the parties is not bias. If the judge knew nothing, walked in, the lawyers walked in for the first time, and he said "good morning, i think apple's guilty", yeah, that's a problem. Here, it's closer to: The judge and his clerks read many thousands of pages of evidence and documents. The judge gave them an opinion as to what he thought would happen if it goes to trial.
  - Vivtek 13y ago
    That may be the best possible answer I could possibly have imagined.
mosqutip 13y ago
The article did mention that it was "unusual". I find it to be unprofessional. It seems justices like to express their personal opinions on big tech cases; perhaps it's a move for free publicity? Either way, it doesn't sit right with me.
- rayiner 13y ago
  It wasn't a "personal opinion." It was a pre-trial opinion ("opinion" in the formal sense of a judicial decision) on the case. A judge will issue something like this during a bench trial (trial in front of a judge rather than a jury) basically as a way of telling the parties: "based on the evidence I've seen so far I'm leaning towards ruling this way." It's a way of giving the parties an idea of which way the wind is blowing to guide settlement discussions before trial.
- gamblor956 13y ago
  This happens all the time in civil courts, and in criminal courts in the pre-trial stages (i.e., evidentiary hearings and other pre-trial matters). The judge's actions were unusual only because the article was written by an Apple blogger with no legal background.
dublinben 13y ago
I'm not sure why you see this as the judge expressing their personal opinion or bias. They're giving a tentative judgement of the outcome of the case.
iand 13y ago
It's not a jury trial so the judge is going to be the one making the decision in the end. She's see the evidence and she's expressing her advance opinion. It's not binding and it gives a steer to the involved parties thereby probably reducing overall trial time and costs.
colturner 13y ago
Her 'bias' is based on the evidence already submitted in pre-trial and only shows that she's leaning one way not that her mind is completely made up. A bit unusual to say it out loud but anybody would form an opinion after reading the DOJ's side of the argument.
brown9-2 13y ago
"Bias" implies the judge was inclined to rule against Apple before ever hearing any evidence.
DannyBee 13y ago
This is not bias, the judge has seen a lot of filings at this point, and is giving a preliminary view of what he thinks is likely to happen here. Basically, what's the judge is really saying is "Apple, you should settle this, because from what I see, it isn't going to go that well for you". This happens all the time in both civil and criminal courts.
hristov 13y ago
It depends what the procedural background is. For example, if there is a motion for a preliminary injunction, then the judge has to decide whether one side has a high chance of winning the case.

Regardless of whether or not her opinion turns out to be unwavering/correct, I find it crazy that a judge would expose her bias before the trial starts. Is this common?

pyre 13y ago

I don't believe that they are required to recuse themselves[1], but if there was a bias, it probably makes an appeal easier. [1] A good example was when Jack Thompson (personally) sued one of the judges that was hearing a case he had. The judge was not required to recuse himself, even with the possible conflict of interest, because this would effectively allow someone to 'choose a new judge' by suing the judge they didn't like.

Vivtek 13y ago

The article does state it's an unusual move.

DannyBee 13y ago
The article is wrong. It happens all the time, and is perfectly normal. First, let's get over the idea that any talking about a view before the trial is wrong. They have submitted mountains of evidence. The judge already knows what the experts are going to say on both sides, etc. The judge has to have an opinion on how the case will turn out to rule on various motions. It's perfectly normal for a judge to say "After reading these motions, and the evidence, here is my view ...". This tends to encourage parties to settle, rather than continue to waste the courts time. To put it simply: Having an opinion based on the evidence and law so far is not bias. Sharing that opinion with the parties is not bias. If the judge knew nothing, walked in, the lawyers walked in for the first time, and he said "good morning, i think apple's guilty", yeah, that's a problem. Here, it's closer to: The judge and his clerks read many thousands of pages of evidence and documents. The judge gave them an opinion as to what he thought would happen if it goes to trial.
- Vivtek 13y ago
  That may be the best possible answer I could possibly have imagined.

mosqutip 13y ago

The article did mention that it was "unusual". I find it to be unprofessional. It seems justices like to express their personal opinions on big tech cases; perhaps it's a move for free publicity? Either way, it doesn't sit right with me.

rayiner 13y ago
It wasn't a "personal opinion." It was a pre-trial opinion ("opinion" in the formal sense of a judicial decision) on the case. A judge will issue something like this during a bench trial (trial in front of a judge rather than a jury) basically as a way of telling the parties: "based on the evidence I've seen so far I'm leaning towards ruling this way." It's a way of giving the parties an idea of which way the wind is blowing to guide settlement discussions before trial.
gamblor956 13y ago
This happens all the time in civil courts, and in criminal courts in the pre-trial stages (i.e., evidentiary hearings and other pre-trial matters). The judge's actions were unusual only because the article was written by an Apple blogger with no legal background.

dublinben 13y ago

I'm not sure why you see this as the judge expressing their personal opinion or bias. They're giving a tentative judgement of the outcome of the case.

iand 13y ago

It's not a jury trial so the judge is going to be the one making the decision in the end. She's see the evidence and she's expressing her advance opinion. It's not binding and it gives a steer to the involved parties thereby probably reducing overall trial time and costs.

colturner 13y ago

Her 'bias' is based on the evidence already submitted in pre-trial and only shows that she's leaning one way not that her mind is completely made up. A bit unusual to say it out loud but anybody would form an opinion after reading the DOJ's side of the argument.

brown9-2 13y ago

"Bias" implies the judge was inclined to rule against Apple before ever hearing any evidence.

DannyBee 13y ago

This is not bias, the judge has seen a lot of filings at this point, and is giving a preliminary view of what he thinks is likely to happen here. Basically, what's the judge is really saying is "Apple, you should settle this, because from what I see, it isn't going to go that well for you". This happens all the time in both civil and criminal courts.

hristov 13y ago

It depends what the procedural background is. For example, if there is a motion for a preliminary injunction, then the judge has to decide whether one side has a high chance of winning the case.