|
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, August 25 2012 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
We didn't have a reporter there, unfortunately,
so some questions we could answer if we had had
someone there are not answerable.
I am thinking maybe we should try to figure out
a way to hire people to attend trials like
this. I can't imagine how, but not having someone
there for the whole thing was a major mistake,
but one based on a lack of volunteers in that
area free to attend.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
"Bias grounds" would be a challenge for cause (one also might argue
that Samsung should have used a peremptory challenge on him, but a) I don't know
how many of those (if any) they had, and b) there may have been more obvious
candidates for them). However, just because he is an engineer who holds a
patent, doesn't mean that he would necessarily be biased in favor of the patent
holder in this case. That's something that Samsung would need to bring out in
voir dire. Possibly they didn't catch it, possibly the guy didn't think he was
biased, possibly he was biased and he lied (which seems the least likely of the
lot to me as most folks in that situation would rather appear biased for a shot
at getting out of the jury).
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|