You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
74 points

I was a juror last year for a civil case, half the witnesses were cross examined over zoom before the days of the trial and played back for us. The judge made it explicitly clear that we were to take remote testimony the same as any others done in person

This isn’t a criminal trial with Gabe Newell as the defendant, it’s a civil trial against the company Valve.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

True, but Gabe is CEO and owner of Valve.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

True, but Gabe is CEO and owner of Valve.

How should that change the legal process/expectations?

I own a '92 Ford ranger, what legal structure changes for me considering I own that?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

Because you would expect the people in charge of the company to answer questions regarding the actions of the company.

If you were driving your truck and crashed into a traffic light, and it was caught on camera, you would be expected to answer questions about that. Even if you weren’t driving, as the registered owner you’re still going to be asked about it, or at the very least to identify who was driving.

Gabe isn’t just a tertiary witness, he has direct responsibility. Not that I think he’s done anything wrong here, I’m just saying it makes sense to have him answer questions live in court, rather than give a pre-recorded interview. Doing it live but remote invites other issues, such as poor connection quality, which would rather be avoided unless absolutely necessary.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points
*

Another thing with the trial I was a jury member on was the plaintiff themselves were not always present, most days it was just their lawyer and paralegal. The judge reminded us each day that we can’t hold their physical presence or lack thereof for or against them.

I’m no lawyer, but if neither the plaintiff nor the witnesses needed to be physically present I don’t see how they can justify forcing Gabe Newell to be. Despite being CEO he’s still not the defendant.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

I mean he is pretty close to being the defendant, up to the limited liability of the company he owns and operates.

It’s also a fact that different courts, and even different judges, may treat things differently. I have no idea how Seattle handles things, but I reckon this is in line with other cases they’ve heard.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Games

!games@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.

Weekly Threads:

What Are You Playing?

The Weekly Discussion Topic

Rules:

  1. Submissions have to be related to games

  2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil

  3. No excessive self-promotion

  4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts

  5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW

  6. No linking to piracy

More information about the community rules can be found here.

Community stats

  • 9.1K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.7K

    Posts

  • 79K

    Comments