Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 18th Dec 2012 14:31 UTC
Permalink for comment 545756
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/25/13 0:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 23:59 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Howard Fosdick on 05/24/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 14:44 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 23:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 22:01 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/23/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/22/13 22:23 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2011-01-28
jared_wilkes,
For god's sake man, the post we're talking about is right here!
http://www.osnews.com/thread?545687
Your not talking about outside knowledge, your talking about following instructions. The judge concedes very clearly that any erroneous statements by Hogan during deliberations would have to be barred as evidence. She's taking a legal shortcut and claiming it doesn't matter whether the wrong instructions were following during deliberations because it's inadmissible as evidence anyways.
Therefor THE COURT DID ***NOT*** DISAGREE THAT HOGAN DISOBEYED THE COURT'S INSTRUCTIONS. The court chose to dismiss any such evidence without further consideration.
I'm going to save us both a lot of trouble here and just agree to disagree right now since I feel this isn't going to go anywhere.
Edited 2012-12-18 20:58 UTC