From: thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu (Ted Frank)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Reply-To: thf2@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: University of Chicago
Lines: 26

In article <1993Apr16.131041.8660@desire.wright.edu> demon@desire.wright.edu (Not a Boomer) writes:
>In article <1qksa4INNi7m@shelley.u.washington.edu>, tzs@stein2.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:
>> 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.
>
>	They are two witnesses who didn't come forth until after the first
>trial.  While it would be "tough luck" for GM if they new about these witnesses
>beforehand, IMO this constitutes "new evidence".

The test isn't whether GM knew--otherwise that would reward GM for its
stupidity.  The test is whether GM reasonably should have known of their
existence.  It works both ways--if GM had won the trial, and the plaintiff
turned up two witnesses who came forward after the first trial who should
have been located beforehand, too bad, so sad--no new trial.

Like Tim said, you don't get a new civil trial because you screwed up 
the first time around.  Unlike the criminal justice system, repose is
much more important in the civil justice system.
-- 
ted frank                 | 
thf2@kimbark.uchicago.edu |         I'm sorry, the card says "Moops."
the u of c law school     | 
standard disclaimers      | 
