Legal Courtroom Stuff

[livendive 8]

Quote

My question: Suppose I believed that the company IS responsible for all actions that occur on its premises, or involve its employees. Why would THIS not be considered a pre-existing bias?

Who said it wouldn't? In such a scenario, stating beforehand that you believe a company categorically is or is not responsible for the actions of its employees indicates an unacceptable bias. There would be no reason to conduct a trial in front of such a jury, as the evidence wouldn't affect the verdict.

"A company may (not) be responsible for the actions of its employees" = acceptable.

"A company is (not) responsible for the actions of its employees" = unacceptable.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[wmw999 2,129]

Quote

What about when the company commits fraud, are the people that work there liable?

Nice point

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What about when the company commits fraud, are the people that work there liable?

As in: individually liable? In the US: Sometimes Yes, and sometimes No.

If the employee knew about the fraud and helped facilitate it? Yes, in most instances (unless he was acting out of threats or coercion).

If the employee knew about the fraud, didn't participate in it, but did nothing to stop it either? Grey area and tough call. I'd think it probably depends on his level of responsibility within the company, among other things. Would be very much a case-by-case thing (i.e., would depend on the specific facts of each individual case.) Whether it gets to the jury might vary a bit from one state to another depending on state caselaw. If it does, then it would be a jury question.

If the employee knew nothing about the fraud, and therefore did not knowingly facilitate it? Probably not, in most instances.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

What about when the company commits fraud, are the people that work there liable?

As in: individually liable? In the US: Sometimes Yes, and sometimes No.

If the employee knew about the fraud and helped facilitate it? Yes.

If the employee knew about the fraud, didn't participate in it, but did nothing to stop it either? Grey area and tough call. I'd think it probably depends on his level of responsibility within the company, among other things. Would be very much a case-by-case thing (i.e., would depend on the specific facts of each individual case.) Whether it gets to the jury might vary a bit from one state to another depending on state caselaw. If it does, then it would be a jury question.

If the employee knew nothing about the fraud, and therefore did not knowingly facilitate it? Probably not, in most instances.

What if the employee was told that fraud was taking place through thier efforts by an outside source?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

What if the employee was told that fraud was taking place through thier efforts by an outside source?

Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of the source. Once he knows about it, he has a duty - at the very least - to not facilitate it. Such knowledge might even give him the duty to report it.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

What if the employee was told that fraud was taking place through thier efforts by an outside source?

Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of the source. Once he knows about it, he has a duty - at the very least - to not facilitate it. Such knowledge might even give him the duty to report it.

Can you use settled cases in, or as testimony?
To clarify: Can you use depositions, evidence, or transcripts used in other court cases?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if the employee was told that fraud was taking place through thier efforts by an outside source?

Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of the source. Once he knows about it, he has a duty - at the very least - to not facilitate it. Such knowledge might even give him the duty to report it.

Can you use settled cases in, or as testimony?
To clarify: Can you use depositions, evidence, or transcripts used in other court cases?

Transcripts of sworn testimony, whether in depositions or courtroom, are usually public records, unless placed "under seal", either by the signed agreement of the parties, or by Court order. Case verdicts are also public records. Public records are generally (subject to relevance, etc.) admissible into evidence in other cases, and that includes sworn testimony from earlier cases.

Settlements of litigation, however, are private agreements between the parties, and part of the settlement agreement might include a written pledge by the parties to keep the details of the settlement confidential. Generally speaking, settlements of litigation, as well as settlement negotiations, are usually not admissible into evidence in another case.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

What if the employee was told that fraud was taking place through thier efforts by an outside source?

Knowledge is knowledge, regardless of the source. Once he knows about it, he has a duty - at the very least - to not facilitate it. Such knowledge might even give him the duty to report it.

Can you use settled cases in, or as testimony?
To clarify: Can you use depositions, evidence, or transcripts used in other court cases?

Transcripts of sworn testimony, whether in depositions or courtroom, are usually public records, unless placed "under seal", either by the signed agreement of the parties, or by Court order. Case verdicts are also public records. Public records are generally (subject to relevance, etc.) admissible into evidence in other cases, and that includes sworn testimony from earlier cases.

Settlements of litigation, however, are private agreements between the parties, and part of the settlement agreement might include a written pledge by the parties to keep the details of the settlement confidential. Generally speaking, settlements of litigation, as well as settlement negotiations, are usually not admissible into evidence in another case.

I see -

Public records you say? That is good.
I guess then the first step would be to research to find out what the verdict was specifically, what "seals" if any, are attached, or wether a settlement was reached and what public records are available.


I may have a new hobby.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Andy9o8 0]

Quote

Everyone serves on a jury with preexisting biases and prejudices. It is the voir dire process that reveals and eliminates the extremes. Hey Andy9o8, how does that sound?

Correct; you're referring to basic human nature. All people have preexisting biases; although not everyone necessarily has a bias that is relevant to the subject matter of a particular case. (For example, an 18 year old newly-minted adult serving jury duty might conceivably not have any pre-existing biases toward the issues behind, say, a contract dispute between 2 businesses.)

The voire dire process only works the way it's supposed to when prospective jurors are completely candid about what biases they do, and do not, have.

[RonD1120 58]

Quote

Quote

Everyone serves on a jury with preexisting biases and prejudices. It is the voir dire process that reveals and eliminates the extremes. Hey Andy9o8, how does that sound?

Correct; you're referring to basic human nature. All people have preexisting biases; although not everyone necessarily has a bias that is relevant to the subject matter of a particular case. (For example, an 18 year old newly-minted adult serving jury duty might conceivably not have any pre-existing biases toward the issues behind, say, a contract dispute between 2 businesses.)

The voire dire process only works the way it's supposed to when prospective jurors are completely candid about what biases they do, and do not, have.

Thanks for the reply. You got a bit of a workout on this thread.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[Airman1270 0]

If a case involves a traffic mishap, they do not reject potential jurors simply because they held a driver's license. Yet in a case involving a skydiving mishap, the first people rejected are people with parachuting experience. Why?

If getting to the truth is a priority, wouldn't a juror with some skydiving experience be an asset?

I once asked a lawyer: "You know how they sometimes cover newspaper vending machines in the court building so jurors won't see them? If these people are so shallow, so easily manipulated that exposure to a newspaper would render them incapable of deciding a case fairly, why are they selected as jurors? Why don't they just pick a panel of smarter people?" He said I'd stumbled onto something of a trade secret.

Cheers,
Jon

[billvon 2,406]

>If a case invovles a traffic mishap, they do not reject potential jurors
>simply because they held a driver's license. Yet in a case involving a skydiving
>mishap, the first people rejected are people with parachuting experience.
>Why?

Because each side wants their side to win. Each attorney gets to dismiss some of the jurors without cause. It's easy for the prosecution to therefore eliminate all skydivers; it would be very had to eliminate all drivers.

>If getting to the truth is a priority, wouldn't a juror with some skydiving
>experience be an asset?

To one side, yes. To the other side, usually not.

>"You know how they sometimes cover newspaper vending machines in the court
>building so jurors won't see them? If these people are so shallow, so easily manipulated
>that exposure to a newspaper would render them incapable of deciding a case fairly,
>why are they selected as jurors? Why don't they just pick a panel of smarter people?"

Because smarter people are often proud of their ability to dodge jury duty.

[Airman1270 0]

...Because smarter people are often proud of their ability to dodge jury duty.