Slashdot Mirror


RIAA's 'Misspeaking' May Have Affected Verdict

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "David Kravetz of Wired.com covered last year's Capitol v. Thomas trial gavel-to-gavel. It's worth noting, then, his article saying that the RIAA's recent statement — that Sony's top litigation lawyer 'misspoke' during the trial. She said that making a copy from one's own cd is 'stealing', which (in his words) may have caused a major miscarriage of justice. Wired further points out that later on in the trial, during the RIAA's examination of Ms. Thomas, 'On the hard drive she [turned] over were thousands of songs Thomas said she ripped from her CDs. The RIAA's Gabriel suggested to jurors that copying one's purchased music was a violation of the Copyright Act. Gabriel, for example, asked Thomas whether she had ever burned CDs, either for herself, or to give away to friends.' Gabriel, the RIAA's lead attorney, apparently misspoke too — prejudicing jurors along the way."

2 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. appeal? by tsstahl · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Is any of it grounds for appeal?

  2. Re:Let me clarify my position. by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    this is how a good many high-profile criminal cases are argued by DAs everywhere. Misrepresenting the leagal status of your case is almost universally allowed now days. Most things we worry about here... like being charged kiddie-porn or terrorism or hacking are delt with the same way.. half truths by prosecutors trying to "invent" crimes and trying to bend laws to fit instead of knowing how to charge you with breaking the appropriate law (which would be a slam dunk). Prosecutors routinely try to bring in non-relevant evidence, in a trial over 1 or 2 illegal pics they might put the worst stuff they find that might be in your cache and use that to bait the jury and confuse the issue of "morality" with which pictures break the law and WHY. Police do the same in their "reports", I've seen police reports with ""'s that a person said this or that when it wasn't what was said at all, but what the police THOUGHT was the answer they wanted to hear... and not the facts.

    Fact is that the present jury system is DESIGNED to REMOVE the jury from the facts. Designed to obscure facts of a case from the Jury, while crippling their ability to ask for facts or have the appropriate laws relevant to the case pointed out to the. Juries are treated as a bunch of dumb slobs to beg to push the Blue button or Red button so they can go home. The civil system is even worse as all the cases "waste the courts time" so incentive to pull big stunts and baited arguments is in full effect because the jury just has to "agree", it doesn't have to make LEGAL sense!!!