Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS
Yes, but this would be evidence that the defendant wouldn't want coming up at trial either. There is no logical reason for the defense to keep evidence of the defendant's innocence to show at the trial and not the pretrial. So naturally the judge would have seen all the evidence for the defendant's innocence that is ever going to be shown by the defense during the pretrial. There is no reason to say that the judge makes decisions without seeing the evidence.
The point of the procedure is that the plaintiffs and the defendants try to settle the dispute themselves during the pretrial, so they each show the evidence for their arguments while trying to discover as much evidence against their opponent's arguments. The judge's input is required only if the two sides can't agree.
|
We need a snark font in the worst way...
I was just pointing out how silly the whole "pure as fallen snow" spin is.
Defendants settle to avoid worse things. Either bigger penalties, bigger expenses, preserving secrets...