From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice (GM trial)
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 40

In article <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.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?
>
>	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.

On the other hand, it would be kind of scary if there were *never* a final
verdict, because a party to litigation could keep saying "Oops!  I forgot
to bring up this evidence," and demand a new trial.  You get one bite at
the apple.

>	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
>Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

It's up to General Motors to find those witnesses in the first litigation.
You'd be up in arms if a plaintiff suing General Motors pulled the same
stunt and made them relitigate an issue that they already lost.  It's not
as if General Motors couldn't file enough discovery motions to delay the
trial until they found all the witnesses they wanted.

>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  

Define "obvious bias."

>Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

Did GM move for a new trial on those grounds?  No?  Perhaps they had a 
reason?  
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 
