I think prior acts do need to be taken into consideration. While they are not on trial for those acts, the trial is to show negligence. Treating the Oil spill as if it were a first time offense is morally wrong. They say your true charater is who you are when nobody else is watching. So they will hide their past mistakes that continue to roll forward. For this to pass–they are hiding something. Makes me wonder what else they are hiding.
I’m all in favor of socking itto BP, but the ruling here was in keeping with law school basics and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Simply stated, in a civil case (as opposed to a criminal case) past acts of wrongdoing can’t be used to show that the person acted in the same way. A lot of people have a problem with this rule. But just think about it. Let’s say you have 10 tickets for running red lights and you paid the fine each time. Then you have an accident at the issue is, who ran the red light, you or the other guy. But this time, you had the green light. To decide the case, the jury needs to weigh what happened that day, and the only evidence that really means anything is what happened that day. Just because you ran red ligts before, doesn’t mean you did it this time.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Americans With Disabilities Act, and prior Supreme Court cases, require that the new fund set up to compensate Plaintiff Steering Committee attorneys, that withhold 6% of settlements, as ordered by Judge Barbier, http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/OilSpill.htm BE JUSTIFICATION for these attorneys to provide extended representation to disabled claimants! Please bring this to the attention of others.
I think prior acts do need to be taken into consideration. While they are not on trial for those acts, the trial is to show negligence. Treating the Oil spill as if it were a first time offense is morally wrong. They say your true charater is who you are when nobody else is watching. So they will hide their past mistakes that continue to roll forward. For this to pass–they are hiding something. Makes me wonder what else they are hiding.
I’m all in favor of socking itto BP, but the ruling here was in keeping with law school basics and the Federal Rules of Evidence. Simply stated, in a civil case (as opposed to a criminal case) past acts of wrongdoing can’t be used to show that the person acted in the same way. A lot of people have a problem with this rule. But just think about it. Let’s say you have 10 tickets for running red lights and you paid the fine each time. Then you have an accident at the issue is, who ran the red light, you or the other guy. But this time, you had the green light. To decide the case, the jury needs to weigh what happened that day, and the only evidence that really means anything is what happened that day. Just because you ran red ligts before, doesn’t mean you did it this time.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Americans With Disabilities Act, and prior Supreme Court cases, require that the new fund set up to compensate Plaintiff Steering Committee attorneys, that withhold 6% of settlements, as ordered by Judge Barbier, http://www.laed.uscourts.gov/OilSpill/OilSpill.htm BE JUSTIFICATION for these attorneys to provide extended representation to disabled claimants! Please bring this to the attention of others.