Just to recap, the evidence (that Judge Cote wrote the majority of her judgement in advance) presented in the threads here at MobileRead would appear to be the following three pieces:
1) The Reuters report on the pretrial hearing from 23rd May 2013:
Quote:
|
Cote, who is hearing the case without a jury, said at the start of the proceedings that she was working on a draft of a written decision that she would expand and publish after the trial.
|
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/...94M19A20130523
Given that she was asked to provide a tentative view by both Apple and the DOJ this is not surprising. However, this does not prove that this draft was completed before the trial, or, even if it was, that it made up the majority of the final text of the judgement.
2) The comments at the Robing Room that Judge Cote has a tendency to pre-judge cases:
http://www.therobingroom.com/Judge.a...=1403#comments
There are six posts that assert that she has a tendency to pre-judge: comments 12988, 12534, 12300, 11883, 9552, 9176.
There are also eight very positive comments about her there.
Still, given those negative comments, we can't rule out that she may have a tendency to pre-judge a case. However, that isn't evidence that she did so in this case. It would just support any other evidence to that effect.
3) The Fortune article after the trial which suggested that Judge Cote could have written much of her judgement in advance:
http://fortune.com/2013/07/10/the-ap...e-2nd-circuit/
Quote:
|
The first 122 pages of the 160-page ruling against Apple that U.S. District Judge Denise Cote handed down on Wednesday could have been written before the trial began. In fact, most of them probably were.
|
This is simply the author's assertion, based on a) Judge Cote's comment that she had started work on a draft, and b) the fact that the first 122 pages basically cover the events leading up to the trial.
Here's the judgement document for reference:
http://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress...us-v-apple.pdf
The first 122 pages make reference to things that occurred during the trial from p6 onwards, but mainly in footnotes, which does support the idea that much of this section was drafted in advance.
However, the structure of the document is to cover the history leading up to the launch of iBooks in the first 100 pages, followed by 12 pages of analysis of the legal standards against which the case should be judged, before getting into the analysis of the evidence.
So, there's really no reason why the first 112 pages shouldn't have been written in advance anyway.
The remaining 47 pages are where the detailed analysis takes place based on the trial, and where Judge Cote's reasoning for the judgement is presented. There's no suggestion anywhere that this more important last 40 pages or so was written in advance.
I can see no other evidence presented on MobileRead nor have I found any through Google searches outside MobileRead.
pwalker8, if these are not the three pieces of evidence that convinced you that Judge Cote was biased because she had prepared most of her judgement in advance, please direct us to your other sources.
Graham