| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |
| Samsung's claims of juror misconduct revealed |
| By Thom Holwerda on 2012-10-03 13:47:53 |
| "Samsung has now filed an unredacted version of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it. It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of 'implied bias' and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous 'evidence' of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure." It's a treasure trove of courtroom drama, this. Like this one: Hogan got sued by his former employer Seagate in 1993, causing him to go bankrupt. The lawyer in said case is now married to one of the partners of the law firm representing Samsung in this case. Samsung seems to implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - argue that Hogan had a score to settle in this case, because - get this - Samsung has been Seagate's largest shareholder since last year. Hogan failed to disclose the Seagate lawsuit during voire dire, which is a pretty serious matter. No matter whose side you're on, this is John Grisham-worthy. |
|
| Hmm... |
| By TBPrince on 2012-10-03 14:09:27 |
|
I think it's easier than that (though claims might be true, of course) : Apple is a US company, Samsung is not. When the trial is held in US court, there are little chances to get a fair trial, given the economic warfare US and other countries are fighting and the fact Apple is slowly loosing its battle against Samsung. We read enough articles and opinions (some from experts in that matter) not to think that virdict wasn't a joke... |
 - Score: 5 |
| What may overturn jurry verdict |
| By przemo_li on 2012-10-03 14:32:40 |
|
Is the fact that foreman used his outside knowledge to judge in the matter, and influenced other jurors with that knowledge that was not presented in the court. That is serious. Very. Jury man drinking alcohol and taking marijuana during break between jury sessions? Nope. Jury man laying to judge over question if he can withheld his knowledge for the duration of trail? Yes. |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By Thom_Holwerda on 2012-10-03 16:05:01 |
|
> He only needed to mention what happened the last 10 years, his own case was well beyond that. The courtroom transcripts say otherwise - as clearly mentioned and proven in the article. Here is the question in, uh, question: "LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?" Nothing about a time period. Edited 2012-10-03 16:13 UTC |
| - Score: 5 |
| Maybe God isn't biased |
| By jefro on 2012-10-03 16:26:03 |
|
Everyone else is. There is not and never has been an impartial juror. They ought to quit the entire deal of requesting 70 people to fill 12 slots. Just take the first 12 in and let it rip. Stupid questions. They asked me if I had bumper stickers, ever protested anything. Edited 2012-10-03 16:27 UTC |
| - Score: 1 |
| RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-03 16:26:03 |
|
There has to be a reason why he brings up the 10 year period. Maybe someone told him or he misunderstood something. Even if there is no 10 year period, if he believed there was one he didn't intentionally misled the judge. But apparently Samsung didn't do much digging then or they decided to keep him in case they lost so they could use it as a reason for retrail. |
| - Score: -1 |
| RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By anevilyak on 2012-10-03 16:48:43 |
|
> There has to be a reason why he brings up the 10 year period. Maybe someone told him or he misunderstood something. Even if there is no 10 year period, if he believed there was one he didn't intentionally misled the judge. Simply legally covering his ass, nothing more. Nothing whatsoever in the court transcripts (which are publicly available) indicates a 10 year limit was ever presented to the jurors in any context. Furthermore, since the case in question (and associated bankruptcy) was > 10 years ago, it also wouldn't show up in a routine background check, so without him stating it, there would have been no other way to discover it without significantly more time for juror verification than was given. (Judge Koh put some quite severe and unusual time constraints on pretty much every aspect of this case) |
| - Score: 6 |
| RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By MrWeeble on 2012-10-03 17:03:06 |
|
Seems to be a problem with this particular juror in that he doesn't pay attention to questions and instructions and does his own thing. That's fine in many areas of life - usually the only person who gets screwed is you; but jury service is something special where other people's lives are in your hands and you have to pay attention and confuse yourself |
| - Score: 5 |
| RE: Maybe God isn't biased |
| By darknexus on 2012-10-03 17:18:10 |
| I don't particularly see what a god has to do with it, but other than that I almost agree. Personally, I don't see the point of jury trials. Not only is there no such thing as an impartial person, but they also actively weed out any people that have any knowledge whatsoever of the field in question. How, exactly, are you going to get a proper judgement when they do that? In order to judge something correctly, one must at least have some basic grounding in what they are judging. Still, that's never stopped us before has it? The whole system is one giant cock-up. And no, I'm not saying this because I think Samsung should have won. Personally, I think they should have both been tossed out on their asses and possibly even jailed for wasting the court's time with this ridiculous crap. |
| - Score: 4 |
| RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By MOS6510 on 2012-10-03 17:30:11 |
|
I don't know the guy, but from what I read he does seem a bit odd which makes it even more odd he got picked as the main man. To me it seems more logical, if you want to do jury trails, that they at least employ a professional person who leads the jury. Someone who knows the do's and don'ts. |
| - Score: 2 |
| RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510 |
| By jared_wilkes on 2012-10-03 18:13:06 |
| I also don't see Samsung's follow-up question of, "And have you been involved in other legal cases? If so, please describe them." Because, otherwise, you are just pointing to a couple of questions that he answered perfectly truthfully. |
| - Score: 1 |
| News | Features | Interviews |
| Blog | Contact | Editorials |