Yes, I've been swotting up on court evidence in advance, says Autonomy founder Mike Lynch Former Autonomy chief exec Mike Lynch sensationally admitted to London's High Court this afternoon that he has been reading courtroom evidence in advance of being questioned about it. Barrister Laurence Rabinowitz QC, counsel for HPE, was asking Lynch about the transcript of a phone conversation the ex-CEO had with an internal …
They're supposed to because it's not a trial for murder, so each party gives its evidence over to the other and everyone knows what everyone has.
Only in a murder trial do you have a last-minute proof that the prosecution keeps hidden until just the right time - twenty seconds before the commercial break.
Only in a murder trial do you have a last-minute proof that the prosecution keeps hidden until just the right time - twenty seconds before the commercial break.
Wow, that would mean the US more enlighten. I doubt that the UK would let prosecutors withhold evidence till the last minute. Not even the US does that
Yes, but the Spanish system of law is utterly different to ours.
In our system (which I call our system, since this is being written in english, and basically every country using english as a native language uses common law and the adversarial system) each sides present all of their evidence, and then the prosecution tries to make the defendant look guilty, and the defendant tries to explain away the evidence to look innocent. The person with the argument that best convinces a Jury wins. The Judge then decides sentencing.
In more continental systems of law such as the Napoleonic code (rebranded the code civil, Emperor Napoleon was not universally popular...) the Judge acts as an inquisitor who looks at the evidence and then decides what he thinks happened.
Under the latter system, there is no point telling somebody what evidence you have against them as not knowing what evidence exists is an excellent incentive not to lie too much. (because if you get caught lying, but the Judge doesn't tell you that you've been caught lying then he's going to know that your a lying git and probably lying about other things too...)
Yes, of course. A witness would expect to have access to the daily transcript and the trial bundle*. Coaching would be a different thing, as would contact with lawyers or others associated with the case whilst sworn in as a witness and it may be the cross examining barrister was hinting at this latter to make the witness uncomfortable.
* Enough documents to sink an aircraft carrier in this case.
"A surprised-sounded Rabinowitz replied: "So whilst the evidence is ongoing, you are being given documents which have been put on Magnum to review before you have given evidence?""
You're supposed to pay expensive lawyers to tell you what to say on the stand, not actively follow the trial My Lynch...
Er, I thought this was the principle of full disclosure, i.e. the plaintiff legally has to hand over all evidence beforehand so the defence can er, mount a defence. Or is HPE's lawyer surprised that Lynch has actually read it because he didn't believe he would? I conclude from this that HPE's modus operandi is to never read any documents that are handed over to them. Explains a lot really including how they ended up here in the first place :p
Yeah, but if you're not well-lawyered, that full disclosure might happen when the other side hands you a big wodge while you're waiting to go in to the court. Then the judge asks whether you've had the documents in advance, and the answer is yes. The fact that "in advance" was three minutes is irrelevant, and without being well-lawyered you're too bewildered to see what's going on until it's too late.
Barristers are there to come up with an answer like that immediately, under pressure in court. They are specialists in presenting cases and thinking quickly, which is a different skill set to slowly thinking a problem through. That's why they have to be instructed by a solicitor.
I can't help but think that the surprise in this case is something like the surprise that Sir Humphrey shows in one of the episodes of "Yes Minister" when Mr Hacker discovers a memo he's not supposed to have time to find in the middle of a bunch of stationary requisitions in one of the dozen or so boxes given to him to read in bed that evening.
Jim Hacker: I wonder why the Foreign Office didn't cover themselves.
Israeli Ambassador: Maybe they did.
Jim Hacker:They gave me several boxes tonight. I've been through them all except this one. I wonder if this could be it. ''Northern Indian Ocean Situation Report''. It's 138 pages - It must be it.
Next day
Sir Humphrey: May I inquire where the impulse for this little escapade came from?
Jim Hacker: Of course you may - It came from Luke.
Sir Humphrey: Luke!!!
Luke [from the Foreign Office]: From me?
Jim Hacker: It was you who put together that masterly Northern Indian Ocean Situation Report?
Luke: Yes, but it argued for not doing anything.
Jim Hacker: Come off it, Luke you can't fool me.
Luke: What?!
Jim Hacker: I can read between the lines.
Some politicians have a feeling for foreign affairs. I knew you meant St George's needed support.
Luke: Oh, yes - well, no, actually. Only in one paragraph on page 107.
Jim Hacker: It was enough, I can take the hint.
I'm giving you full credit, I told the Foreign Secretary it was your warning sparked it off.
Luke: No, no, it wasn't! You haven't?!
Jim Hacker: And I don't think I'm giving away any secrets when I say you are going to be rewarded.
Luke: Rewarded?
Jim Hacker: Ambassador at a very important embassy.
Luke: Which embassy?
Jim Hacker: Tel Aviv.
Luke: Oh, my God! You can't send me to Israel. Think about my career.
Jim Hacker: Don't be absurd, it's an honour - promotion.
(c) Jay and Lynn
Reminds me of a case a lawyer I sat next to on a flight in the US told me about. The case was about insurance on some pieces of very expensive farm machinery. The farmer had apparently read every word of the very lengthy contract document he'd been asked to sign. He was very clear on what certain terms and words meant. The lawyer said the judge was most impressed with how clued up the farmer was. In pre trial disclosure the insurers had provided a sh!tload of emails in what was a suspected attempt to swamp the farmer and his legal team. He'd also gone through those with the help of his lawyer and found relevant information. The insurers had lost the case.
The nature of the supposed frauds continues to seem very minor at best. There is nothing wrong with a reciprocal purchase unless it was artifical and even if this was the case the effect is not to increase profitability but turnover and this would reduce margin which was supposedly what HP was concerned might be lowered with hardware sales. It all seems quite desperate barrel scrapping rather than a strong case.
Mostly agree with your comment re reciprocal purchases. Not sure though how "within two quarters of each others" fits in with the rules, especially if they fell either side of a "year end."
Only being paid by a customer when they get paid by their own customers is also a standard business risk, many a small business (along a chain) goes under in such circumstances.
[quote]Prior to the revelation that Lynch had been doing the legal equivalent of reading his notes during a school exam, Rabinowitz had been cross-examining him about a deal Autonomy struck with Filetek in 2009. HPE alleges this deal was a fraudulent transaction designed to bulk up revenues in Autonomy's accounts.[/quote]
Seeing that this is an open book exam having and HPE know you have them what is the problem?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
