On Mon, 14 Jan 2008, Roger Hicks wrote: > Arguments: As H. Goethe pointed out, there was no serious doubt over > the appropriateness of the judgment in CFJ 1860. Instead the decision > to REASSIGN was made based upon the appeal panel's distaste for the > bribery involved in my original judgment. R911 says:
Ugh. Gratuitous arguments: They were reasonable to request further evaluation (through REMAND or REASSIGN), even if not all of their arguments were perfect. While their arguments and side-motives created sufficient "reasonable doubt" as to BobTHJ's guilt (as needed to find em guilty in a criminal trial), it was appropriate for them to remand or reassign. If I had anticipated the above response, I would have been more careful at pointing out this burden of proof issue. -Goethe
