Hacker News Reader

Comment by jessep | Hacker News Reader

Seriously? How on earth could this have not been uncovered long ago? I know that the pbay lawyers are really good, I wonder if they knew this all along and held it as a card in case they lost.

I mean, the judge is not just a member of a Swedish org campaigning for more strict copyright, he's on the board! Absolutely amazing, I can imagine him chuckling and rubbing his hands together when he had the opportunity to hear the case.

View on HN

If I was a pbay lawyer and I knew this info, I wouldn't release it right away. This way, if the judgment is for my clients, great! If not, I can then release it, claim bias, and get a new trial.

If I released it right away and replaced the judge, I won't have an ace up my sleeve if the judgement goes against my client.

It's pretty smart actually.

Quite insightful comment!

I think now, if they spin this correctly, PBay will have far more leverage for their main point - that the trial is a set up by the IFPI-industrial complex.

I don't know how Swedish courts work but in the United States all you can really do is privately ask the judge to recuse himself. If he chooses not to you can request that be noted in the court record as possible grounds for an appeal and from there you go on with your case.

So really all an attorney can do is wait things out and then present it as an appeal after the trial.

Sounds like it's the same over there.

It seems reasonable that you first try to win a case and only invest the time required to look for these kinds of connections when it proves necessary? Especially since it should rarely occur, as judges do not usually waste the governments' money in such an obvious way. Everyone and his mother understands that this will lead to a retrial.

@TomofTTB: IANAL, but as far as I know, these kinds of conflicts of interest will cause retrials in most of western Europe.

"that you first try to win a case and only invest the time required to look for these kinds of connections when it proves necessary?"

No way. You look into these connections as soon as possible - it will help shape your defense - and, if the verdict favors your client, you shut up forever. OTOH, if the verdict doesn't favor your client, you go for a retrial and try to invalidate as much of the prosecution's evidence as possible. It's risky, because now everybody knows everybody's hand, but, in face of an unfavorable ruling, this seems to be the way to go. You should prepare some new evidence to clear your client.

when he had the opportunity to hear the case.

Was that opportunity just a coincidence? or it was manipulated so that he would hear the case?

Any reason to actually believe it was manipulated or are you just tossing out suggestions of conspiracy?

It's perfectly valid to question whether or not a conflicted judge pulled any strings to hear the case - that sort of thing goes on, and he has shown lack of judgement at best and outright corruption at worst. Everything about his position in this case needs to be thoroughly investigated, but that's one of the most important things IMHO. If he made any effort to hear this case himself, that makes lack of judgement less likely and planned corruption more likely.

If a conflicted judge pulled strings to hear the case, this proves a conspiracy. This accusation should be thoroughly investigated and, perhaps, the way cases are assigned should be rethought.

Being very speculative..

Isn't this a free option? If it's enough to get the judge swapped isn't it enough to overturn a guilty verdict? They get an opportunity to try the case, the possibility of winning. Then they have an easy path to a retrial.

Being the victim of judicial corruption can't be that bad for their cause.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com