From: dreitman@oregon.uoregon.edu (Daniel R. Reitman, Attorney to Be)
Subject: Re: The state of justice
Organization: University of Oregon
Lines: 38
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: oregon.uoregon.edu
Summary: GM's quest for justice
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41    

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.

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

>	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
>shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
>a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

>	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?

First, people should be aware that Brett's (no last name listed) 
posts on bit.listserv.politics indicate that he has been  
hostile toward GM's hiring policies and to the Moseley verdict 
when it came out.  Equal opportunity disagreement, I guess.  :-)

My guess, without seeing the judge's opinion, is that GM's motion 
was denied on due diligence grounds.  Otherwise, a party to a 
case could always keep one or two semi-credible witnesses in 
reserve to spring if they lose.  Not exactly a way to promote 
repose.

						Daniel Reitman

"The Uniform Commercial Code protects the innocent purchaser, but it is not a 
shield for the sly conniver, the blindly naive, or the hopelessly gullible."
Atlas Auto Rental Corp. v. Weisberg, 54 Misc. 2d 168, 172, 281 N.Y.S.2d 400, 
405 (N.Y. City Civ. Ct. 1967).
