Sharing "all" of the evidence between the parties is not the american way.

The only evidence that is required to be shared between parties is that which is going to be presented in a court.

Otherwise, we can all agree that evidence can be conveniently with held, destroyed or lost, if it serves a desired outcome and if one of the parties does not know that such evidence exists and in the possession with the other party.

for example, a defense attorney may know that his/her client has committed multiple murders but won't reveal that information to the prosecutor trying the case for a single murder.

the prosecutor has similar incentives for not presenting evidence as well.

similarly, i'm sure if you went to court to pay a one parking ticket that was in the courts records, but you knew you had other parking tickets cited, you wouldn't tell the court about them.

so sharing evidence makes for an ideal fantasy and a t.v. show.

Actually you are half right..

In criminal cases, the prosecution MUST turn over all exculpatory evidence to the Defense. If for some reason they don't and later it is proven they withheld they face disbarment and even criminal charges.

However this is a civil case, basically like was mentioned in the article, all evidence that will be used in court must be shared between the two camps prior to the hearing.

well, i think that was part of the point i was making.

the prosecutor with an agenda can with hold evidence to ascertain an outcome for justice or one that is political.

as you eluded, when " later " comes around then there can be a problem.

but "later in time" is a powerful tool.

firstly, if crucial evidence is destroyed or lost, then there is no evidence leftover for "later"

secondly, if evidence is with held and the defending party doesn't know that such evidence exists now, then it may never be known when "later" comes around, unless there is a whistle blower or a change in an agenda.

subsequently, a whistle blower would have to provide evidence that evidence existed but with held. but a smart prosecutor's office usually gets rid of any attorneys who are seen to be non team players.

In b4 author, Jedite -- thanks. People seem to be quite aware of the criminal-court rules re evidence, but not the rules for civil; too much Law & Order in our collective media diets maybe :-) .

Since there different levals of Civil proceedings and not wanting to hear another reference to a silly cop or Law and Order, here is a link on Minnesota State law. If you scroll down you'll see Civil.
http://www.mncourts.gov/...ult.aspx?page=511#civil
So who is right or wrong? Probablly everyone to one degree or another including myself. So read the law, draw your own conclusions and then drop it. There are more important things in life than seeing who can make the most "snarky" comment.
Here's another link on Civil law which I assume might interest you and shows the different levels of law:
http://www.womenslaw.org...ate_code=MN&lang=es
feel free to comment snarky or otherwise since we do have choice in this country or as Hocuspocus puts it "Freer choice"(whatever the hell that means). Of course most people that might benefit from the knowledge base here end up saying "screw it, the site aint worth the BS.
Goodbye and good luck

I've heard of coleslaw, but womenslaw? :)

*laughing*

Ok, you need to lay off the sugar or caffeine or something. That was bad.... :p

@blt30:

Snark is a good thing. Helps people not take themselves or anyone else too seriously. Besides, with how well reasoned responses, logic and things like "facts" go over here...what else ya gonna do? ;)

I would make a couple of points on your article and these get to the fundamental differences between a Civil case versus Criminal case.
1) The standard or bar of proof which is incredible ambiguous in both cases is, never the less, lower in a Civil case than in a Criminal case. In a Criminal case it is "beyond a reasonable doubt". In a Civil Case it is "preponderance of evidence". Now both are ridiculous in that they both lack any degree of objective reasoning but in the case of a Civil trial, right out of the gate, the Plaintiff tends to have the advantage because the bar is lower.
2) This difference also leads to differences in the issue of providing the other side with what will be presented at "trial". In a criminal case it is more clear-cut- the "discovery process" but in a Civil case it is not as clear-cut ( there is some variation from state to state on this but generally, this is the case). In a Civil case, no evidence that will be presented at the trial has to be given unless it is asked for by the opposing team and even then it all depends on the wording. In this case, on one hand, the fact that the Plaintiff's attorney (aka RIAA) fell all over themselves apologizing would tend to indicate that they didn't provide all the information. On the other hand and this is why the lower standard of proof is a problem is the fact the Judge ended up letting the testimony into evidence. So, I tend to fault the defense for possible not wording their request for evidence in a way that gets all the testimony. As a way of understanding the differences just compare some Civil trials to that of Former Senator Stevens and the fact that during the "discovery process", the prosecution intentionally withheld evidence to such an extent that the judge dismissed all charges and ordered a criminal investigation of the prosecutors .
3) it seems that, once again Ms. Thomas-Rasset is being ill-served by her defense team. Why? Well just look at her testimony. Clearly, the defense did very little prepping of her before the trial which led her to make those beyond ridiculous statements. In a Civil trial, the 1st rule on either side is to try and keep your answers short and sweet and avoid impromptu answering.
Finally, having said this does not mean that I support this action against her - I don't. Anyone who hears a person representing the RIAA , regardless of which side you're on, say that 150,000 per song is a fair price and not have their jaw drop to the floor lives in a very strange world. The fact that he said this comment with a straight-face would make the Mafia proud. This also shows why the RIAA chooses the Civil avenue as opposed to the Criminal avenue since the bar is much lower and, once and for all, we have clear evidence of the RIAA engaging in what clearly amounts to extortion. Sadly, they get away with it.

This is why I'm waiting for BN to have a look at the Digital Britain Report, released yesterday which states: "Many responses endorsed the option to introduce exceptional statutory maxima of £50,000 for all IP offences and as a result of this support it is intended that this option will be adopted." Section 51, page 117.

This would greatly reduce the amount organisations like the RIAA can extort out of people to what amounts to a sensible level.

If you're reading this BN, it's well worth a look. Lord Carter the Minister for Communications, Technology and Broadcasting in the UK Government actually knows what the hell he's doing.

Adding a 50p per month 'tax' on landlines in order to fund next generation broadband (fibre optic) is an excellent and cheap idea that very few people should complain about.

The whole report makes interesting reading and is full of sensible plans.

Paul, I hadn't heard about that report yet; downloading now with thanks for the heads-up. (You know I love reading reports. It's a weakness, yes it is.) (ETA: 245 PAGES! DUDE!)

"Later, in a remarkable turn, Ms. Thomas-Rasset took the stand and claimed she'd never heard of KaZaA before papers were served on her in 2005..and despite Ms. Thomas-Rasset having written a paper in college defending the legality of the original Napster.

Note to defense: Playing stupid only works if you aren't actually...stupid.

I despise the penalties they are levying on these cases, but she's guilty as hell regardless. I just wish the penalties were more sane.