Putting this particular case aside, and even the details of this rule, IMHO it is best if all parties are as forthright and upfront as possible. Justice moves faster and wastes less public funds when neither side hides their strategy. If you hide a strategy, when it eventually comes out, the other side should have the right to delay the case as long as it takes for them to prepare a proper response to it. And that just delays things far too long.
I can't rule on the particulars of this rule and possibly it's misapplication. I'm making a general statement about how things ought to be.
As for whether Storm should use any legal tricks that benefit him, of course he should. He is not in a position to opine on how justice should operate like I am. His position is a position of defense.
I don't know for sure, but I thought the principle was that the plaintiff needs to disclose a strategy, because the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, and then the defendant can act accordingly. If it were not for the plaintiff's action, there would be no court case, no waste of funds, etc.
I was wrong about strategy, it's evidence. In criminal cases, the plaintiff needs to disclose at least the evidence. How often is either side required to disclose a general strategy?
Thread collapsed
That's all correct AFAIK. And I might be wrong. A defensive strategy depends on the prosecutions strategy, and if they disclose how they disprove it, that gives the prosecution a chance to find a different way of proving the accusation. Maybe they should be required to have one strategy and stick to it and not have iterative back and forth attempts... Yeah, I think I'm wrong.
I doubt the supreme court will rule on that point, they will rule on something else.
Reading the article helped clarify, thanks nostr:npub1mznweuxrjm423au6gjtlaxmhmjthvv69ru72t335ugyxtygkv3as8q6mak.
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
