injunction/court case updates

C

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
Are audio recorders allowed into the court room? Also are the transcripts available online? I got Monday off thinking of attending. Hmm could run a streaming server on my phone and send it through low bit rate stream to my Steamcast server lol
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
CannaReview said:
Are audio recorders allowed into the court room? Also are the transcripts available online? I got Monday off thinking of attending. Hmm could run a streaming server on my phone and send it through low bit rate stream to my Steamcast server lol
Click to expand...
we could ask the court if transcripts are available. some interesting reading & we could post it as well for others to read....hmmmm
 
doingdishes

doingdishes

Well-Known Member
AllWest Reporting 604 683 4774-ok so I called. its $3.65 a page. to date there are 1050 pages. I am not going to put out that kind of money for my curiosity...way too much for me
 
U

user hidden

Well-Known Member
doingdishes said:
this is something from the courts from Mar 3

http://cas-ncr-nter03.cas-satj.gc.ca/IndexingQueries/infp_RE_info_e.php?court_no=T-2030-13

Order dated 02-MAR-2015 rendered by The Honourable Mr. Justice Phelan Matter considered with personal appearance The Court's decision is with regard to Oral motion regarding the applicability of the principles Browne v Dunn in the present proceeding Result: granted in part "This Court Orders that in respect to the treatment of expert evidence in action, the following shall apply: 'In respect of expert evidence, the Court is not required to accept an expert opinion offered merely because it is not contradicted by cross-examination or other evidence. The principle in Browne v Dunn does not operate to create a presumption of persuasiveness in expert testimony. In particular, the weight, if any, to be accorded to an expert's opinion is not contigent on whether the cross-examination has taken place, nor is cross- examination a precondition to a party leading contradictory expert evidence, or taking issue with an expert testimony in argument.'" Filed on 02-MAR-2015 copies sent to parties entered in J. & O. Book, volume 1259 page(s) 406 - 407 Interlocutory Decision
Click to expand...

what I think it means is whether or not an "expert" witness is cross examined or not, the judge can decide on his/her own upon the merits of what said witnessed said or had in a submitted affidavit.
I guess that is what browne v. dunn has for it's mentioning in this matter and not what the latter's case was about.
 
C

CannaReview

Well-Known Member
user hidden said:
what I think it means is whether or not an "expert" witness is cross examined or not, the judge can decide on his/her own upon the merits of what said witnessed said or had in a submitted affidavit.
I guess that is what browne v. dunn has for it's mentioning in this matter and not what the latter's case was about.
Click to expand...
Well only going by the CC feed we can make an easy assumption the cop was a bad expert and had tainted views of MMAR.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top