On Sun, 2008-01-06 at 14:25 -0700, Chris Gehlker wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2008, at 1:35 PM, der.hans wrote:

> Not only  was it part of the record, she herself has never publicly  
> retracted it. We only get this story that she misheard the question  
> from a 3rd party. Now I'm not a lawyer but I believe that a statement  
> made under oath stands until it is retracted under oath.
> 
> As Patry pointed out, what she said was "When an individual makes a  
> copy *for himself*." which doesn't sound like she misheard the question.
----
I thought I provided a link for the dissection of this.

Jennifer Parisier stated that's "a nice way of saying, steals just one
copy"

She was an expert witness and was asked for her qualified opinion as
such and this was the only context.

The jury was given a list of 2000+ songs that defendant Thomas had on
her hard drive that in the context of Parisier's testimony, had to be
2000+ stolen copies.

"Did you get permission from the copyright owners to do that?" Gabriel
asked.

"No," Thomas responded.

Now, here's the issues with Sherman stating that Parisier 'misspoke'...

Parisier was qualified as expert and her testimony was foundational for
proving infringement. That's a really big issue and court cases are
continually overturned for that reason.

Even more interesting is that attorneys, by virtue of their role as an
officer of the court MUST notify the court any time they know or find
out that a witness has made statements that they know to be untrue. It's
pretty clear that the attorneys for the RIAA are under an obligation to
report this but if they do, it will become a tacit admission that this
error was significant which would probably cause the judge to
automatically vacate the decision, declare a mistrial and the whole
process would have to start over.

Therefore, it's likely that RIAA's lawyers will continue to insist that
it was a small misunderstanding and insignificant and not report it to
the court at the peril of having to respond to ethical complaints lodged
against them.

Even more bizarre, defendant Thomas is currently not represented by
counsel since her attorney has now cut her loose and will not handle her
appeals. I would guess that she is not capable of paying an attorney to
handle appeals for her. I also gather that the EFF has filed or will be
filing an amicus brief/appeal on her behalf but targeted at the awful
jury instructions which probably led to the jury's finding in the first
place. It was these jury instructions that plaintiff RIAA used in their
supplemental motion for summary judgment and it really is this notion of
the reduction in the plaintiff's burden of proof which is at the root of
this firestorm created by the Washington Post article.

The actual jury trial of Capitol vs Thomas and the various activities in
Atlantic vs Howell were consecutive and reflect the changing views of
the RIAA and their litigation.

Craig

---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change your mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss