From: tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: University of Washington School of Law, Class of '95
Lines: 31
NNTP-Posting-Host: stein2.u.washington.edu

demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>	A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
>new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
>from the fire.
>
>	Thoughts?

How can a witness tell that someone in a burning truck is dead rather than
unconscious?

>	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
>denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
>to the previous ruling appear.
>
>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

What kind of witnesses?  If we are talking about witnesses who were at
the accident, or were otherwise directly involved (e.g., paramedics,
emergency room doctors, etc.), then they should have been used at the
first trial.  You don't get a new trial because you screwed up and
forgot to call all of your witnesses.

If we are talking about new expert witnesses who will offer new
interpretations of the data, note that the loser can *ALWAYS* find
such witnesses.  If this were grounds for a new trial, then the loser
could *ALWAYS* get a new trial, and keep doing so until the loser
becomes a winner (and then the other side would come up with new
expert witnesses).

--Tim Smith
