re: More on Mike Maggio (geauxjudge)

quote:

---

So you expect a normal reasonable person to conclude all this happening was just a coincidence when he reduced the award to the exact amount insurance would pay?

---

insurance limitations are the very first thing a plaintiff's attorney asks a defendant for in a tort trial. (edit: not sure of admissability at trial, and i'm not sure if it was disclosed. but i will say a nice round number like $1 million seems like a number someone would choose to award)

i think a reasonable person can look at it and conclude that a business owner decided to fund the campaign of a business-friendly judge without that judge's explicit knowledge.

don't get me wrong, i think this guy is scummy, i think his decision to lower the award (based on the little i know) is flat out wrong, and that the timing of the donations looks bad on its face. all i'm saying is, don't be surprised if this bribe claim doesn't go anywhere barring new revelations.