The "rules" want to have it both ways

Post #56,658 by drewk 10/14/02 12:38:26 PM Reply	The "rules" want to have it both ways The reason courts frown on out-of-court statements about pending matters is that they give the impression of bias, or may be prejudicial to the conduct of the case. But in this particular instance they say that Jackson's remarks would have been appropriate had they been made from the bench. Apparently judges are supposed to be more careful of what they say off the record than on. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #56,670 by ben_tilly 10/14/02 1:28:25 PM Reply	There is a reason for that though The legal system has a principle that the only information taken into account in a judgement should be the information that appeared in public. When private conversations enter into it, this principle is lost. If you don't find this persuasive, imagine for an instant if judges openly engaged in extensive private conversations about their cases. In that case then a smart lawyer both could attempt to plant someone to present to the judge a case that did not appear in court. Is that how we want our judicial system to work? We have complex rules on what evidence is supposed to be considered and why. Extra-court discussion makes a mockery of them. There is a short jump from private conversations to private decisions, made entirely behind closed doors. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #56,689 by drewk 10/14/02 2:22:30 PM Reply	But these were interviews I see your point, but these were clearly statements made to reporters, with the understanding that publication was held until the verdict was final. As important as it is to maintain even the appearance of impartiality, I don't think that we should be swayed by the fact that someone could poossibly decide to intentionally misconstrue the facts. The defense says, "But he talked to reporters. Someone could take that the wrong way." To which I ask, "Who, exactly, could take it that way?" Note that no one has suggested that anyone could actually misconstrue what Jackson said in this case, but want to disqualify his opinion because in some other possible hypothetical future cases that may or may not occur (is that sufficiently qualified?) someone else might not be so clear. === Microsoft offers them the one thing most business people will pay any price for - the ability to say "we had no choice - everyone's doing it that way." -- [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=38978\|Andrew Grygus]
Post #56,695 by ben_tilly 10/14/02 3:00:09 PM Reply	Courts like to have a "bright line" They have what is clearly acceptable, and what is clearly not. Somewhere between the two they need to draw a line. They want that line to be one that is easily recognized, and which is hard to misconstrue. Jackson walked over the line that has been chosen for this problem. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #56,801 by mmoffitt 10/14/02 9:41:44 PM Reply	Ben, I didn't know you to be a Polly-Anna! >>If you don't find this persuasive, imagine for an instant if judges openly >>engaged in extensive private conversations about their cases. Take a Judge to lunch if you don't think this happens. Er, okay, maybe you need to know him/her first. But, come on, you don't think judges have "private conversations" about their cases, witnesses they've seen, briefs they've read? You do live in Murica, don't you?
Post #56,812 by ben_tilly 10/14/02 10:02:52 PM Reply	I am not Note the word "openly". I know human nature and know that it happens covertly, no matter what the rules say. I was just saying why the rules are as they are. Incidentally you may be amused that I very, very nearly wrote "depends on a myth" instead of "has a principle". :-) Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #57,077 by mmoffitt 10/15/02 8:45:52 PM Reply	Must retake "Reading 101" how'd I miss "openly"? But, ... how does one "openly" engage in "private conversations"? ;-)
Post #57,121 by ben_tilly 10/16/02 5:52:12 AM Reply	Actually it is the converse that is hard First of all the use of the word was subtle, which is why I thought about the more explicit phrase. (Don't remember why I chose otherwise.) But how does one openly engage in private conversations? Quite easily it turns out. If either of you blabs, it is now openly out there that you had a private conversation. Therefore reporters are a poor choice for a private conversation. Likewise you don't want to bring up anecdotes from your private conversations. And so on and so forth. All of which comes down to the fact that if you are in the spotlight, then the trick comes with having your inevitable private conversations not be open. I should note that what we are saying here goes just as well for every other profession with professional confidentiality. For instance priests, lawyers, therapists and doctors in practice routinely violate confidentiality to various extents. (And be honest, has anyone ever privately pushed the boundaries of an NDA with you?) Often maintaining the perception is more important in practice than maintaining the reality. Cheers, Ben "Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly." - [link\|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html\|Walter Mead]
Post #57,456 by mmoffitt 10/17/02 8:11:23 PM Reply	Semantics. >> .. the trick comes with having your inevitable private conversations not be >> open. I'd rewrite that, "The trick comes with keeping your inevitable private conversations private" or "The trick comes with preventing your inevitable private conversations from becoming open". What you describe in your last is a private conversation that has ceased to be "private". I get it now. You will forgive me, I'm slow because I am the product of countless generations of inbreeding in the hills of North Carolina. ;-)

Welcome to IWETHEY!