Quote:
Originally posted by Not Me
I agree that it is likely to have been Daubert since it is expert testimony here. However, how else does one get in evidence to show what a reasonable investor would think? Do you parade a bunch of reasonable investors into the courtroom and let them testify to what they thought?
|
Fuck, I've created a monster. Ever been through an expert (Daubert in Fed terms) hearing? Like 99% of everything else in law, the judge can find precedent to support her in any decision. If she believed in the validity of the charge, the experts would get in.
From a "reading the judge" perspective, this indicates she isn't fond of the securitiies fraud charge. What basis she used to do what she did is for law schoolers to debate.
Now, some might say - as Bilmore did - the Govt didn't need the experts anyway. Maybe true, but because the prosecution offered the experts, the judge knew that barring them was a hand grenade in the Govt's case. Simply put, she's subtly damning the govt's case with a monkeywrech which will pass muster on appeal. Judges do it every day of the week.
