all I said originally. I didn't say it was a good or winning argument, and the Judge apparently didn't think so, but he didn't look like a bumpkin, as you portray him.
Without a review of the bidding, (meaning I am not going to reread the transcript) it seems to me that the Judge made the business records argument, suggesting it to the attorney. The attorney seemed confused, I wasn't there, but they WASTED a good half hour talking about it.
WHY WOULD NOT HE JUST PRESENT THE WITNESS??? He has had what, 3 months to prepare this case, why screw around with hearsay on hearsay? There is something smelly here, he could have submitted on written statement according to the court's standing order. THE COURT KNOWS THAT, also.
You implied he made arguments. He stammered. He confused the scope of the admissibility of the issues of penalty with hearsay. The judge stated that no arguments had been made for the admissibility. The Judge invited him to make some. He made none after the invitation, other than to confuse evidence of penalties with hearsay.
What was his argument? That it doesn't matter whether these out of court statements are true, just that the competitors believed them to be true.
Get real. The judge let him off the hook by suggesting that there may be a future witness who can give admissible testimony. What happens if and when it comes to light that HE HAS NO SUCH WITNESS. What does that measure on the Bumpkinometer as to his credibility?
I have heard, but do not know first hand, that ALL of Barksdale's testimony falls into the same category. Barksdale is not a expert in antitrust penalties, therefore all his opinions are not evidence, and the Judge was considering striking his entire testimony.
This of course is pure hearsay.
But I WAS NOT there. I can not judge the feeling in the courtroom or the real meaning of this stage of the arguments. |
