Quote:
Originally Posted by Midtowner
This trial didn't present a question of fact, but of equity. Thus, this sort of question is never tried to a jury.
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.
|
Midtowner, you missed my point. You explained the case from Seattle's and the legal POV.
That was NOT my point.
I know that PBC obtained the documents from the city thru discovery. And I know it was not a surprise to them once PBC introduced exhibits - in fact, Im sure the city thought they could successfully object, which they tried and failed to get sustained.
However, my point was - Seattle LEAKED its info on Bennett to 1) get the public fired up against Bennett in the hopes that 2) Bennett would leak HIS discovery on the city - thereby diminishing it when it goes to court. Also, it wasn't a sure thing that the trial would not have been a jury trial - Im from here and it wasn't until Jan or Feb that Marsha ruled it would not be a jury trial - which is a motion the city raised and many sonics fanatics here were counting on. ...
Like I said, this was all set up to be a PUBLIC trial - yet once Marsha was assigned to oversee it; she removed any and all publicity and is instead trying it on rules of law, something the city has yet failed to prove given it is their burden.
Again, I know the city knew this or that - but Im saying they thought they would win objections and pin it all on bennett and even prior to trial - Im sure they thought the Okie would 'fire back' with discovery he'd gained to Save His Face in Seattle. Remember, Bennett mentioned that he can't show his face here anymore, im sure that was a planned tactic by the city, thinking Bennett actually cared what common Seattleites thought of him.