Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

The interesting thing, which to me at least speaks to intent, is that there would be an understandable reason for him to omit it:

The judge didn't follow through. She asked him about the first case he mentioned, and then moved on without asking if there were any more.

If this was a totally innocent slip, the most believable excuse to me would be that he wrongly assumed that since the judge moved on, she had satisfied herself of what mattered with respect to his experience with trials and did not see a need to concern herself with any other ones, and that he did not know of Samsungs ownership interest in Seagate, and so did not see a specific reason to mention that case and he also found it embarrassing.

Instead he's inventing an excuse that is directly contradicted by the transcript, that is just serving to make the whole thing look more dubious.

At the same time, though, it seems quite inept of the judge to not dot the i's by being precise enough to ask even "any more?" or similar before moving on. Surely a trial judge ought to know that people make stupid assumptions about what a question means all the time.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: