LEGALWATCH: Games Workshop vs Chapterhouse Verdict

[Psychosplodge]

Tempted to take up sewing and that, in an attempt to make cuddly Squigs!

I love Squigs me!

Nah make crocheted cuddly squigs instead

[Chris*ta]

Oh and I apologize for my earlier post stating that Victoria Miniatures was a UK company. My bad.

No need to apologise. It's just there's precious few Australian miniature manufacturers, and I think it's pretty cool to have one

[gbprime]

I'd call them 'adorable evil mutant fungus frogs'.

Call them Ork Quee Quigs, and have people search for "ork quigs". Google will do the rest.

[Chris*ta]

Call them Ork Quee Quigs, and have people search for "ork quigs". Google will do the rest.

Queequeg?

[40kGamer]

post edit :Also I pretty much disagree with trial by jury. As the jury of your peers often isn't.

A jury of peers is often a room full of disinterested people who would far rather be anywhere else. Especially in a case that involves a niche market issue and onerous highly technical laws.

[Chris*ta]

A jury of peers is often a room full of disinterested people who would far rather be anywhere else. Especially in a case that involves a niche market issue and onerous highly technical laws.

I do remember someone observing that a jury is twelve people who aren't smart enough to get out of jury duty

I've been up for it twice (that's what he said ) once I would've been glad of it, because it amounted to paying work, the other time I wouldn't, because I had an actual job at the time. Didn't actually get a case either time though.

I'm not entirely convinced of the jury system, especially the American variant where the lawyers interview a person before deciding if they want them on the jury or not. Basically, I don't see why nobodies should be making legal decisions that affect someone's future; I'd rather have someone who's trained doing it. Then again, I guess it's harder to bribe twelve randoms rather than one judge, so I dunno ...

Actually relevant: Having a jury in a civil case, I've not heard of this before? Is it done in the UK or Australia?

[GrauGeist]

In a civil trial you're allowed to appeal orders and rulings of the judge, but that's it. You cannot appeal the verdict of a jury in a civil trial.

First, that was a truly excellent post.

What about the Judge's instructions to the Jury? If the Judge instructs the Jury incorrectly / contrary to law / legal precedent, what then?

In the battery case, for example, if the Judge said that I literally had to "break face" to be considered Guilty, but all I did was leave a red mark, and the law simply says "bad touch", isn't that instruction something we address upon appeal? The Jury was misinstructed, so came to the wrong conclusion.

Similarly, the issue of discovery - if CHS finds GW had withheld additional discoverable material evidence that drive actual facts that might have led to summary judgement, isn't that an issue for appeal?

[Mr Mystery]

On the subject of Jury Duty, I quite hope I get called up for it!

It's not a million miles from my profession (official title is Adjudicator dontcha know!). And I rather enjoy going over evidence and that!

[Nabterayl]

As far as I know, the UK utilizes trial by jury only for criminal cases. If I can simplify a bit, the American fetish for juries arose historically out of two facts: one, the fact that in the 17th and 18th centuries that's what the English did; and two, the fact that in the 17th and 18th centuries there were not very many colonial judges. So they did it that way back in England anyway, but the colonists also found it to be a way to interject colonial perspective into the judicial process.

Most of the First World has since decided that, frankly, juries are not particularly useful in civil trials, for all the reasons that have been stated since ... well, since Aristophanes. Jurors in a civil trial are not especially apt to pay attention, they don't necessarily have the intelligence or the training to understand what's going on, etc. etc. Plenty of US lawyers feel the same way as the rest of the world. But officially, here in the United States, we recognize the right of a defendant to choose trial by jury or trial by judge to be a fundamental civil liberty, because ... well, mostly because we lionize the state of affairs that obtained in the late 18th century.

EDIT: Okay, that's being a bit flip. The immediate reason why we have a right to jury trials, at least at the federal level, is because it's written into the federal constitution:

In Suits at common law [the only kind we have, really -ed.], where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

Of course, the reason that provision hasn't been amended is because, frankly, we're too in love with the state of affairs that obtained in the late 18th century to bother.

First, that was a truly excellent post.

What about the Judge's instructions to the Jury? If the Judge instructs the Jury incorrectly / contrary to law / legal precedent, what then?

In the battery case, for example, if the Judge said that I literally had to "break face" to be considered Guilty, but all I did was leave a red mark, and the law simply says "bad touch", isn't that instruction something we address upon appeal? The Jury was misinstructed, so came to the wrong conclusion.

Similarly, the issue of discovery - if CHS finds GW had withheld additional discoverable material evidence that drive actual facts that might have led to summary judgement, isn't that an issue for appeal?

Incorrect jury instructions are certainly appealable. Of course, jury instructions are not whipped out for the first time when they are read to the jury. Both sides will have an opportunity to review them and make any applicable motions or appeals. So long as you appeal within 30 days I believe there's nothing technically wrong with appealing jury instructions after the verdict has been handed down, but the appeals court is likely to be ... less than amused by the fact that you waited to see which way the jury would go before appealing.

The discovery process, while torturous, is still good enough that it's very difficult to withhold evidence and not get caught at some point during the discovery process itself. It essentially requires the concealing party to flat-out cheat, which is not as common as you might think (well, as far as we know; attempts to quantify the number of times cheating has completely evaded detection are, by nature, fraught with difficulty). If one does manage to turn up new evidence, though, that's not really an appeal - after all, the judge didn't do anything wrong, the victor did. You could take that new evidence and attempt to get a new trial, though. I am not especially well versed in the nuts and bolts of how that works, mostly because it almost never happens.

[weeble1000]

Nab, I appreciate your sentiment, and your informative posts, but your above post bears an important correction. I'll leave aside your comments on the US jury system, which I vehemently disagree with you about (except to say that you'd rather have a case decided by one person who is "not especially apt to pay attention, [doesn't] necessarily have the intelligence or the training to understand what's going on, etc. etc. than 12 of them within whom you have been able to personally probe for and remove biases?).

JMOL is rule 50 of US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Check section (b) Renewing the Motion After Trial

"If the court does not grant a motion for judgment as a matter of law made under Rule 50(a), the court is considered to have submitted the action to the jury subject to the court's later deciding the legal questions raised by the motion. No later than 28 days after the entry of judgment—or if the motion addresses a jury issue not decided by a verdict, no later than 28 days after the jury was discharged—the movant may file a renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law and may include an alternative or joint request for a new trial under Rule 59."

This also provides some important context, and is found in the discussion of rule 50:

"Often it appears to the court or to the moving party that a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the evidence should be reserved for a post-verdict decision. This is so because a jury verdict for the moving party moots the issue and because a pre-verdict ruling gambles that a reversal may result in a new trial that might have been avoided. For these reasons, the court may often wisely decline to rule on a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of the evidence, and it is not inappropriate for the moving party to suggest such a postponement of the ruling until after the verdict has been rendered."

In other words, it is often safe for a Judge to decline to rule on a JMOL before a jury deliberates as it helps to reduce the likelihood of remand, thus reducing the burden on the public.