Families of SOs Community Group
WE HAVE MOVED!!! ............................. ............................... ......................... ............................ ............................. .......................... HERE: http://support-for-families.boards.net ............. ................ ............... ................ ............................... .................Please create a profile...
For those of you following the restitution issues in federal CP cases, the Supreme Court recently announced that it is hearing oral argument in that case on Jan. 22, 2014. For more information, go here: http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/paroline-v-united-states/
In essence, the Court is deciding whether a victim must demonstrate "proximate cause" between a CP offender's conduct and any alleged injury suffered by the victim. All but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said "yes". The Supreme Court will now decide whether the Fifth Circuit's current rule that proximate cause need not be proved is correct. My impression is that the Court will overrule the Fifth Circuit and require (as it should) a showing of "proximate cause".
In essence, the Court is deciding whether a victim must demonstrate "proximate cause" between a CP offender's conduct and any alleged injury suffered by the victim. All but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit has said "yes". The Supreme Court will now decide whether the Fifth Circuit's current rule that proximate cause need not be proved is correct. My impression is that the Court will overrule the Fifth Circuit and require (as it should) a showing of "proximate cause".
It isn't that you watch too much TV, that is what WE WERE TAUGHT in school about 20 years ago... they are supposed to say it.
A large part of a case I know quite a bit about was going to hinge on the forensic computer data and the defendant had paid quite a bit of money for an expert witness. The important bit had to do with InPrivate filtering (not InPrivate browsing) There were a few, as in 3 or 4, InPrivate filtering artifacts that looked incriminating. The reality is with the way InPrivate filtering works those artifacts could only have been created when certain circumstances were met and those circumstances worked heavily in the defendant's favor. The end result? The "expert" claimed attempting to describe InPrivate filtering to the jury was far too complex and would do more harm than good and kept his full retainer.
But the excuse that it would be too complicated for the jury means that the 'expert' needs to get better at explaining things and the attorney should also get better versed in the subject to the questions can be better...