US v. Bater

Filing 920100204

Opinion

var gAgent = navigator.userAgent.toLowerCase()
var gWindows = ( (gAgent.indexOf( "win" ) != -1 ) || ( gAgent.indexOf( "16bit" ) != -1 ) )
var gIE = ( gAgent.indexOf( "msie" ) != -1 )
var bInlineFloats = ( gWindows && gIE && ( parseInt( navigator.appVersion ) >= 4 ) )
var floatwnd = 0

var WPFootnote1 = 'Although suggesting great latitude, "abuse of discretion" has\
this meaning only where the issue invites it--usually in applying\
a general standard to specific facts (the test being essentially\
one of reasonableness); but (confusingly) "abuse of discretion" is\
used as well to embrace mistakes on abstract issues of law\
(reviewed de novo) and errors of fact (for which clear error is the\
customary test). See Rogers Edwards, LLC v. Fiddes & Son Ltd., 427\
F.3d 129, 132 (1st Cir. 2005).\
'

var WPFootnote2 = 'For example, Bater says that he would not have admitted\
owning a gun since he was a convicted felon; but once the question\
was asked, he might well have thought discovery inevitable and\
sought the benefit of cooperation. Bater also says that if the gun\
case were produced from under the mattress (as Hainey claimed),\
Hainey would have noticed a lump in the bed, which he denied\
seeing; but this depends on the location and size of the lump,\
about which we know nothing.\
'

function WPShow( WPid, WPtext )
{
if( bInlineFloats )
eval( "document.all." + WPid + ".style.visibility = 'visible'" );
else
{
if( floatwnd == 0 || floatwnd.closed )
floatwnd = window.open( "", "comment", "toolbars=0,width=600,height=200,resizable=1,scrollbars=1,dependent=1" );
floatwnd.document.open( "text/html", "replace" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( " p { margin-top:0px; margin-bottom:1px; } \r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( "\r\n" );
floatwnd.document.write( WPtext );
floatwnd.document.write( 'Close');
floatwnd.document.write( "