Quote:
Originally Posted by HOT ROD
Guys, I finally put it all together. I NOW understand why the City of Seattle leaked out most of it's 'evidence' in the form of the emails.
Consider this:
1) Seattle wanted to sway public opinion, that Bennett is a snake and try to 'seed' a potential jury. This is obvious.
|
This trial didn't present a question of fact, but of equity. Thus, this sort of question is
never tried to a jury.
Quote:
|
2) Seattle leaked the emails thinking that Bennett would leak HIS EVIDENCE, thus diluting it.
|
Unlikely considering that the PBC only obtained that information (or I'm 99% sure they obtained it this way) through discovery. That means that the city had to turn those records over to the PBC as part of their pre-trial disclosures.
In other words, there was no ambush here, or at least, there shouldn't have been. The Seattle team had more than enough time to figure out exactly what the PBC case was going to be, what evidence would be put on, etc.
You don't imagine that the PBC attorneys came up with their excellent cross examinations off the cuff, do you? Those questions had probably been tested on a simulated jury and passed through a jury consultant prior to trial. Seattle's attorneys, I'm assuming had the same kinds of resources at their disposal.
As for whether there's an appeal or not, an appeal costs FAR less than a trial does. An appeal consists of a brief, a record, and maybe a few motions. The expensive stuff is done. If nothing else, the prospect of an appeals process in the Ninth Circus (Circuit) Court of Appeals frightens me every time. These "city pride" and "diversity" argument which have everyone thinking "WTF?" right now might weigh pretty heavily on some of those legal "minds" in San Francisco.