Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Android Cellphones Handhelds Patents The Courts Apple

Judge Suggests Apple Is "Smoking Crack" With Witness List In Samsung Case 318

Posted by timothy
from the william-f-buckley-might-politely-correct-her dept.
infodragon writes "Today in the ongoing Apple vs Samsung court case Judge Lucy Koh's patience wore thin as Apple presented a 75-page document highlighting 22 witnesses it would like to call in for rebuttal testimony, provided the court had the time. As those following the case closely know quite well, the case has a set number of hours which are already wearing quite thin. As quoted by The Verge as they sat in the courtroom listening in, Koh wondered aloud why Apple would offer the list 'when unless you're smoking crack you know these witnesses aren't going to be called!'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge Suggests Apple Is "Smoking Crack" With Witness List In Samsung Case

Comments Filter:
  • by RichMan (8097) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @04:07PM (#41015871)

    This is infront of a jury.
    "We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony"
    "They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"

    It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method.
    And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.

    • I'd say it's part of due diligence to rather provide too many witnesses than too few. Besides, if I was involved in a case with a judge making such an utterly unprofessional comment, I'd sure as hell challenge him for prejudice.
    • by ukemike (956477) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @04:39PM (#41016363) Homepage

      This is infront of a jury. "We had 22 witnesses ready, but were denied time to present their testimony" "They were ready to say all sorts of things to support us"

      It is all about getting the jury on your side. Being "unable to present your case" is one such method. And the other side cannot cross examine imagined testimony.

      Clueless alert! The sort of evidence wrangling going on here will never been seen by the jury. All this stuff takes place before the jury is seated or while the jury is in the jury room. When the jury is in the courtroom the only things that are ever discussed are testimony and evidence that has been officially admitted. Seriously this is foundational to the way our justice system works. If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.

      • by DragonWriter (970822) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @05:28PM (#41017013)

        If a lawyer were to bring up evidence that had not been admitted that lawyer would be held in contempt.

        More likely, opposing counsel would object, the comment would be stricken from the record and the jury instructed to disregard it (both immediately, and possibly with a reminder in jury instructions.) If it was grossly prejudicial, opposing counsel might move for and be granted a mistrial (they might move for it anyway, because, hey, it doesn't hurt to shoot for the moon.)

        Contempt would probably only be a result of breaching a previous specific order.

      • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16, 2012 @05:59PM (#41017355)

        Thank you for pointing that out. People forget or simply don't understand that in a jury trial the judge acts as the finder of law and the jury acts as the finder of fact. Deciding what evidence can be presented to a jury (admissable) is decided by a judge and, as you point out, done so out of sight and sound of the jury to remove the possibility of unadmitted evidence influencing the verdict. Deciding what presented evidence is true and believable and what is not is up to the jury.

  • by matty619 (630957) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @04:08PM (#41015897)

    Apparently died with Steve.

  • by zixxt (1547061) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @04:14PM (#41016003)

    I love this Judge, shes blunt and will not take Apples bullshit.

    She needs her own show on TV.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 16, 2012 @04:18PM (#41016053)
    Apple has been caught buying their design expert witness [phonearena.com] for 75.000 USD. Though normal to cover expenses for expert witnesses, this is quite excessive. The guy even describes himself as a professional expert witness on his own website.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dhermann (648219)
      Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?
      • by chrb (1083577)
        Expert witnesses are supposed to be paid for their time - not for their testimony in itself. If the amount of money is excessive, then it suggests that what the client is really buying is the testimony itself rather than merely compensating an independent expert witness for their time. So, the question is, do you honestly think that this expert witness's time "so far" is worth $75k? How many hours work did he put in here? What is his hourly rate? He has "so far" given a testimony that (quote) "mainly verifi
      • by v1 (525388)

        Expert witnesses get paid. What planet do you live on?

        Maybe they're more like consultants?

        To a reasonable degree, I can see paying expert witnesses. If you find a person that is a respected authority, agrees with you, is good at expressing themselves clearly and unambiguously, and is already gainfully employed, you can either (A) subpoena them, drag them away from what they're working on, and probably cost them money and piss them off a bit and end up hurting your case by their spinning their testimony aga

  • Koh may have just handed Apple what they need to prove she has a bias if they need to appeal this case later.

    There appropriate ways for a Judge to express their frustrations at a plaintiff.

  • by HangingChad (677530) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @04:19PM (#41016073) Homepage

    Anyone else think the legal system would make more sense if they were smoking crack?

    • by na1led (1030470)
      Since all these people running the legal system are on crack, you need to smoke the same stuff to understand their perspective.
  • DEA will continue with this proceeding from now on.
  • by peoples_champion (2664783) on Thursday August 16, 2012 @04:54PM (#41016591)
    Apple has just put a patent on the term "smoking crack", people who use the term, and/or engage in the activity could now be charge with copyright infringement. This may prove to be the most serious blow to the crack consumers, and the illegal drugs industry at large........

"Irrationality is the square root of all evil" -- Douglas Hofstadter

Working...