In <1993Apr15.143320.8618@desire.wright.edu>, demon@desire.wright.edu sez:

There's this minor thing called "interest of finality/repose".  What
it means is that parties aren't dragged into court over and over again
because the losing side "discovers" some "new" evidence.  I don't know
about you, Brett, but I suspect GM had the resources to find just
about as many expert and fact witnesses as it wanted before the trial
started.  Letting them re-open the case now is practically an
invitation to every civil litigant on earth to keep an ace in the hole
in case the verdict goes against him.

BTW, in federal criminal cases, Rule 33 does permit a motion for a new
trial "based on . . . *newly discovered* evidence" if made within 2
years of the verdict.  (Emphasis mine.)  If you're trying to make a
backhanded point about criminal justice in a discussion that has
little to do with criminal trials -- as the estimable David Brock did
in his amusing WSJ piece last week -- save your breath.




Yup.  Which is why they shoulda been brought around the first time
through. 



Unless there's some reason to believe that this supposed bias predated
the trial (as opposed to being a product of it), and that GM was
unfairly prevented from discovering it (by venireman concealment or
otherwise), why should GM be allowed to complain?
