The plan here is to review Rossi v. Darden, to help readers make sense of what happened. There was a blizzard of filings, pleadings, documents in evidence, depositions, etc. Many depositions exist in many redactions; our Depositions page provides a list of these, and, at the top, links to complete or, for some depositions, we do not have the complete deposition, so then a merged compilation is provided, so the reader can see all that was deposed by a given individual. (Thanks to Bruce H. for the compilation work).
I just pulled out the opening statements of the parties from the trial record, now linked from Opening statements.
Study pages will be created for each statement including links to evidence, etc. These pages will also include opinion, but the design is for them to be, overall, neutral-by-inclusion rather than neutral-by-exclusion (i.e., more like Wikiversity than Wikipedia). (If some faction elects not to participate, that faction’s views might be under-represented. TANSTAAFL.)
2 thoughts on “Analysis of Rossi v. Darden opening statements begins”
Yes. I was there to hear all those statements. I can see how you might think that about the jury reaction, but, watching the statements, I did not expect that. The Chaiken opening was dreadful. He had put up blank sheets of paper on easels, and created an unreadable chart for the jury. His handwriting was unintelligible and the whole thing was a mess. I doubt that the jury retained much from his Opening. Pace was simple and clear. Rossi claimed on Lewan’s blog that he was wrong about the pumps, but … it was simple for the jury to understand, and Rossi’s objections don’t appear to have substance. Rossi finds an appearance to assert and if one is not careful, it can look quite plausible, but … this was going to be a trial, and Rossi’s arguments would be exposed for what they are.
This was mostly a repeat of arguments in the Motions for Summary Judgment (but not entirely).
Pace was engaging and friendly … and clear, with points to make that he could back with evidence of clear import. The basic theme was that Rossi lied, again and again. Generally, Rossi has some excuse, and I think I’ll write another Sympathy for the Devil post where I create arguments in Rossi’s defense, specifically against a charge of perjury. I can do that with the matter of the Johnson Matthey claim. That is, I can provide an interpretation that makes the Rossi claim not exactly a lie, but a Rossi interpretation that Rossi “ought to know” would be misleading. Like Clinton with Monica Lewinsky. Arguably true, from the witnesses point of view, but not the whole truth. The heat exchanger issue might be more difficult.
I think Lukacs saw this case, saw the IH Opening, and decided it was unwinnable, that appearances were far too strong. To convince Rossi to settle, he needed to present it that way, “Unfortunately, Dr. Rossi, the lack of evidence supporting your positions is a huge problem. Sometimes court decisions are not fair! I have to advise you to settle, or it could become very difficult for you. Besides, I think I can get your License back, you just won’t be getting the money from IH, So you can still make even more money, whereas if you lose in court, you could be unable to move forward. I know, again, it was all unfair, but didn’t you also have problems like this in Italy?”
And to Pace he could say, “Rossi is very stubborn, you know that, and if you want to insist on recovery on what you invested, I don’t think I can convince him to settle. Just return the License and walk away, I think he’ll do it now that the reality of the trial is appearing. After all, the License and that Plant is useless to you.”
Thank you for posting these opening statements.
I cannot bring myself to read them. I just skimmed over them. What I did read filled me with a sense of horror. I am very glad the suit was settled. I can well imagine that a jury might have been bamboozled by Rossi’s lawyer.
The whole business was dreadful.