Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 112 posts

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#71

Post by toast0 »

ab5tract wrote: post #48
pclmulqdq wrote: post #6

For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages involved in the case, and has conceded that amount. That would take damages off the table for this case. With no monetary damages, Google thinks that the state has no right to demand a jury trial. They have also said in the article that the amount that Google claims the DOJ can prove is less tha…

How is it legally possible to avoid a jury just because the absolute, immutable majority of people understand that you are guilty?

In the US courts system, juries are used to determine questions of fact, but if the facts are not in question, a judge can apply the law and there's no need for a jury.

Agreeing that there's no question of facts speeds the whole process along quite a bit. There's no need for witness testimony, it can all be managed in hearings and with breifings.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#72

Post by Zigurd »

ungreased0675 wrote: post #5

Big companies can just pay money to make antitrust cases go away?!?

Boeing paid money to make a criminal fraud prosecution go away. Then the law firm representing Boeing hired the DoJ lawyer who negotiated the deal, which cut the victims out of the negotiation, possibly in contravention of victims' rights.

Boeing then failed to comply with the agreement and allegedly crimed again within the term of their deferred prosecution agreement in the door plug incident. This all running concurrently with the outgoing CEO getting a $33M bonus.

So. Yeah.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#73

Post by tiffanyh »

ab5tract wrote: post #48
pclmulqdq wrote: post #6

For everyone who doesn't understand what's going on: Google has written a check that they claim covers the monetary damages involved in the case, and has conceded that amount. That would take damages off the table for this case. With no monetary damages, Google thinks that the state has no right to demand a jury trial. They have also said in the article that the amount that Google claims the DOJ can prove is less tha…

How is it legally possible to avoid a jury just because the absolute, immutable majority of people understand that you are guilty?

What's happening is similar to "no contest".

Where Google accepts paying the damages but does not plead or admit guilt.

(You can do the same thing if you get a speeding ticket. And since you accept the consequences, no reason to go to trial.)

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#74

Post by rayiner »

Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #65
dragonwriter wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's possible to avoid a jury trial in a civil case by removing from dispute the issues which would give the other side the right to demand a jury trial.

How is that beneficial to society?

Each individual legal rule isn’t formulated according to a free-ranging consideration of what’s “beneficial to society.” It would be impossible to administer such a system of rules based on ad hoc policy considerations.

The rule here, the Seventh Amendment, confers a right to a jury trial when one would have been required under English common law at the time the seventh amendment was written. Roughly speaking, in the English system, cases involving monetary damages were handled in courts of law with juries. Cases that involved injunctive relief (orders to do or not do something) were handled in courts of equity with decisions made by judges.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#75

Post by chii »

tedunangst wrote: post #67
Red_Leaves_Flyy wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is that beneficial to society?

The dispute is resolved.

but it's not resolved, it is "repaired" by a cheque for an amount that was determined ahead of time by google, and the jury not consulted at all?

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#76

Post by free_bip »

pclmulqdq wrote: post #59
free_bip wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment did not in any way refute the claim that this would be considered a bribe in other countries. It's an exchange of money for a favorable (to them) change in the legal process, which seems like a reasonable definition to me.

Wait, in every single jurisdiction, when Alice wants something and Bob can do it, bribery is when Alice pays Charlie, who happens to be representing Bob for the transaction, to get the thing done. The canonical example of bribery is that a supplier (Alice) gives a company manager (Charlie) a nice watch in order to close a deal with the company (Bob). In this case, Alice (Google) is paying Bob (the DoJ) with the expec…

Paying your parking ticket does not change the legal process - The govt sends you a letter saying you must pay the fine or challenge in court, and you pay it.

What Google is doing is changing the legal process - The govt wants a jury trial, Google is saying "here's some money, now no more jury trial." It seems more than a bit different, at least to my non-lawyer eyes.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#77

Post by rayiner »

dataflow wrote: post #50
jsnell wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the monetary damages aren't the point, why did the DoJ make (according to the article) a last minute addition to the case for monetary damages? If you're right and forcing the payment of damages isn't the point, that seems to add credence to the idea that the monetary damages claim is just about manufacturing a pretext for a jury trial. Why is DoJ gaming the system a good thing?

Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If anything, avoiding it is.

The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. If you tack on a claim for monetary damages when your that’s just a tail wagging the dog, when your real focus is the injunctive relief, then that is gaming the system.

Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a damages claim that’s tangential to its case to get in front of a jury on a technicality. And Google invoked a different technicality to get out from a jury trial. Live by the sword die by the sword.

And whether any of this helps or hurts the government’s chances against Google is entirely irrelevant.

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#78

Post by [deleted] »

dataflow wrote: post #64
jsnell wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, yes, I agree that it is obvious. But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand, and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. Those don't seem very compatible. It looks way more as if the DoJ knows they're not entitled to a jury trial, would like one for tactical reasons, and spent a lot of time a…

> But then that's you simultanously claiming that the DoJ is trying to "force a jury trial" with a pointless claim of monetary damages on one hand It's not pointless, they're trying to stop the alleged anti-competitive behavior. And they want a jury trial to aid them in that effort. > and that they're not trying to game the system on the other. We're going in circles here. Like I said: forcing a jury trial isn't "gam…

[deleted]

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#79

Post by anon84873628 »

banish-m4 wrote: post #3
nine_zeros wrote: post #2

In most parts of the world, this would be recognized as bribery.

It's legal in the US when a lobbyist is involved and too big to jail. Corporate attitude: Just do the risk management of paying "parking tickets" vs. "buying a parking permit". "Do no evil"

By the way, it was actually "Don't be evil".

Re: Google cuts mystery check to US in bid to sidestep jury trial

#80

Post by dataflow »

rayiner wrote: post #77
dataflow wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting a jury trial isn't gaming the system. If anything, avoiding it is.

The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges. If you tack on a claim for monetary damages when your that’s just a tail wagging the dog, when your real focus is the injunctive relief, then that is gaming the system. Or, to put it differently, the government invoked a da…

> The system says that decisions involving monetary damages are made by juries, and decisions involving injunctive relief (ordering a company to do something or not do something) are made by judges.

The "decisionmaker" isn't the point here. And in fact the decision is with the judge in both scenarios: https://www.brienrochelaw.com/legal-faqs/can-a-judge-overtur...

Post reply on HN