[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What Happened to Jury Trial In Antitrust Cases?
- To: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Subject: Re: What Happened to Jury Trial In Antitrust Cases?
- From: email@example.com (Ralph Anspach)
- Date: Thu, 11 Dec 1997 10:07:23 +0000
- Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <199712080246.SAA23075@sac-d.mp.campus.mci.net>
On Sun, 7 Dec 1997 18:46:59 -0800 (PST) email@example.com
(Mason Gaffney) writes:
>Do any of my lawyer friends and relatives have any words of comfort,
>advice, for admonition for Charles Mueller?
>>From: charles mueller <cmueller@METROLINK.NET>
>>Subject: What Happened to Jury Trial In Antitrust Cases?
Ralph Anspach writes:
Chuck Mueller should be commended for writing a script based on the
anatormy of current antitrust cases. I suggest that it be sent to all
the 1,000 federal judges, especially the newly appointed ones to to
help them clear their calendar with even more dispatch than they do now.
I imagine what happened to jury trials in antitrust cases was that
judges (by this I mean most of the judges) are by nature pro-monopoly,
either by social group empathy (weasel words for "class"), golden calf
worshipping or Chicago-School brainwashing. They were appalled by a law
of Congress which privatized much of antitrust enforcement through the
triple damage device, especially since juries were not always aware of
what the judges saw to be the needs of society to keepeconomic and
political power centralized in the great, monopolistic corporations.
When the privatization of antitrust suit flourished from the New Deal
onwards, the judges sprang into action .
They found the technical solution in the folklore of law which
holds that every person is equal before the law, whether the person is
a mammoth corporation or a homeless shoplifter. Since a compassionate
law already granted the judges the right to throw out cases against
defendants before or after trial on legal or factual grounds, it was
only a short step to see the monopolist defendant in antitrust suits as
also deserving of court compassion - and then some. Therefore, the
privatization of antitrust law came to be destroyed from about 1975 on by
summary judgment in favor of the victimized monopolist defendants.
Chuck MuellerÂ’s remedy is to get rid of judges in antitrust
cases - good idea but perhaps not executable. I would like to suggest
for starters a more modest reform targeting the perhaps weakest link in
the judiciaryÂ’s killing of antitrust, namely ChuckÂ’s (3) "If you're
somehow able to carry on, the monopolist will then make a motion for
"summary judgment," a request for a ruling by the judge that--even
ASSUMING the truth of all the "facts" you've been able to muster via your
"discovered" documents and depositions--you still have no case."
Now #3 makes the hidden assumption that the judge has the
gift of foresight (which under New York law incidentally is a felony when
put into practice) and therefore knows that no new evidence will emerge
between #3 dismissal and the trial date and that during trial,
examination of witnesses and exhibits will do nothing to strengthen the
plaintiffÂ’s case. If the judge does have such foresight, one has to
wonder why we donÂ’t have all litigations resolved by judges at the end of
discovery. What a neat way of get rid of court jams. And instead of
black robes, we could attire our judges in robes suitable to prophets.
So maybe we should begin our reform by challenging the prophecy principle
which lies behind #3 and prohibit judges from exercising the power of
Or am I missing something.