So, assuming the ability to recall emails that contain evidence of an intent to defraud or a crime does not exonerate people (eg, saying you don’t remember robbing the bank isn’t going to get you out of the video evidence of you doing so), what’s the procedure here?
Since this is a civil trial, can the court infer the intent to deceive based on the evidence presented? I know that taking the 5th in civil trials can be inferred as evasive and negative in some states for civil but not criminal trials, but I don’t know how that applies here.
Judge has already ruled that fraud was done. This part of the trial is just to figure out the penalties. The more they can muddy waters as to who, exactly did the fraud, the more they can hope the judge treats them like absurdly negligent morons rather than criminal masterminds.
It’s like there’s this committee of Trumps, and they’re going one by one, asking “who shat in the punchbowl?” None of the kids can remember doing it, and their daddy just thinks it’s a travesty that we’re even talking about the steaming load. The evidence is all there, everyone knows what happened, but it’s hard to know how much of a team effort it was and whom to punish.
Well, testimony can give context to evidence. The judge can infer a lot from what they won’t say.
These people aren’t secretaries or interns. They are top executives and they can’t seem to recall any of their duties that went into these evaluations. The judge is at least able to glean that they are incompetent and fraudulent when deciding damages.
So, assuming the ability to recall emails that contain evidence of an intent to defraud or a crime does not exonerate people (eg, saying you don’t remember robbing the bank isn’t going to get you out of the video evidence of you doing so), what’s the procedure here?
Since this is a civil trial, can the court infer the intent to deceive based on the evidence presented? I know that taking the 5th in civil trials can be inferred as evasive and negative in some states for civil but not criminal trials, but I don’t know how that applies here.
Judge has already ruled that fraud was done. This part of the trial is just to figure out the penalties. The more they can muddy waters as to who, exactly did the fraud, the more they can hope the judge treats them like absurdly negligent morons rather than criminal masterminds.
It’s like there’s this committee of Trumps, and they’re going one by one, asking “who shat in the punchbowl?” None of the kids can remember doing it, and their daddy just thinks it’s a travesty that we’re even talking about the steaming load. The evidence is all there, everyone knows what happened, but it’s hard to know how much of a team effort it was and whom to punish.
As far as I know, the judge can directly compare the evidence to testimony and use it as part of the ruling.
So since she isn’t providing anything to refute the evidence, the evidence is accepted as is?
Well, testimony can give context to evidence. The judge can infer a lot from what they won’t say.
These people aren’t secretaries or interns. They are top executives and they can’t seem to recall any of their duties that went into these evaluations. The judge is at least able to glean that they are incompetent and fraudulent when deciding damages.
yes.