[Am-info] Judge K-K seems to favor Microsoft

[Mitch Stone]

It's my understanding that at person must swear to their own testimony, 
that nobody else can do that for them, even in written form, unless that 
written form is a deposition or an affidavit. Someone please correct me if 
I'm wrong, but this is one of the basic rules of evidence. I suspect that 
the AOL exec would have been a reluctant witness, else the states would 
have had at least an affidavit from him.

The states are in bind. Even though they have new evidence to present, 
they must realize that they can't retry the case in this courtroom, and if 
they are ever tempted to forget, the judge will remind them. The way I see 
it, the states are banking on the difficulty people, even judges, have in 
"unhearing" what they have heard, so they are sneaking in a much new 
evidence as they can in the hopes that the judge will have a more complete 
understanding of the issues in play, and the stakes.


On Thursday, March 21, 2002, at 08:13 AM, John J. Urbaniak wrote:

> As I understand it, the attorneys objected to the "hearsay" charge.  
> After all, they
> had the e-Mail from the guy.
>
> Judge K-K said that they didn't call the sender of the e-Mail as a 
> witness, but it
> was she who limited the number of witnesses.
>
> I'm concerned that she doesn't want to be the judge who causes Windows to 
> be taken
> off the market.
>
> John
>
>

   Mitch Stone
   mitch@accidentalexpert.com