A judge denied GM's new trial motion, even though GM says it has two
new witnesses that said the occupant of the truck was dead from the impact, not
from the fire.

	Thoughts?

	It's kind of scary when you realize that judges are going to start
denying new trials even when new evidence that contradicts the facts that led
to the previous ruling appear.

	Or has the judge decided that the new witnesses are not to be believed? 
Shouldn't that be up to a jury?

	And what about members of the previous jury parading through the talk
shows proclaiming their obvious bias against GM?  Shouldn't that be enough for
a judge to through out the old verdict and call for a new trial?

	Whatever happened to jurors having to be objective?