Like a republican Karen, he’s going to talk to a manager.
Comment on Federal judge vows to investigate Google for intentionally destroying chats
NounsAndWords@lemmy.world 6 months ago
“I am going to get to the bottom of who is responsible,” he said, adding he would pursue these issues “on my own, outside of this trial.”
I was a bit confused how a Judge would just decide to start investigating some additional matter that is not formally before them to decide.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works 6 months ago
andrew@lemmy.stuart.fun 6 months ago
“Do you know who I am??”
circuscritic@lemmy.ca 6 months ago
All bark, no bite on the hand that will feed him after he leaves the bench (Big Capital). See:
"And yet, the judge decided today that he would not issue a “mandatory inference instruction”…”
stifle867@programming.dev 6 months ago
How do judges normally treat destruction of evidence? Do they not care who committed the crime and just make a ruling on how to infer it? I feel like the court would want to know who has committed something as serious as this but I’m not sure of the actual process for it.
WhatAmLemmy@lemmy.world 6 months ago
Don’t worry about it. He’ll totally deal with it after letting them off with a slap on the wrist, in his formal legal capacity… “in his own time” like some Hollywood renegade judge!
rostby@lemmy.fmhy.net 6 months ago
I heard judge Judy likes 20’s
revv@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 months ago
In federal court, a judge has a few options to deal with spoliation;
The last of these basically allows the court to infer (or instruct the jury to infer) that the destroyed evidence was the most possibly damning thing and hold that against the party in question.
Outside of the above, destruction of evidence is a crime. The judge has no power of investigation that I’m aware of, but maybe it just means informing those who have such power.