|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
"The Supreme Court has already ruled comments by jurors cannot be used to
impeach a jury verdict. (see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanner_v._United_States) In the US, jury verdicts
are scared."
Aside from improperly spelling sacred, it helps to, I don't know, actually read
part of the Supreme Court ruling instead of relying on a Wikipedia article. A
dubious one at that. Such as the part "as to . . . the effect of anything
upon his or any juror's mind or emotions . . ., except that [such testimony is
admissible on the question] whether any outside influence was improperly brought
to bear on any juror."
Furthermore it pays to observe whether the case is similar enough. As for
example, claims of jury misconduct during the trial ( which were not brought up
during the trial ) based on flimsy evidence, as opposed to jurors outright
proclamation of how the jury including th8emselves behaved overall. It's hard to
claim that the privacy of jury deliberations is sacrosanct when the jury is
going around giving interviews on how they deliberated.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 05:46 PM EDT |
"The Supreme Court has already ruled
comments by jurors cannot be used to impeach a jury verdict" ,
This woulb be true if the case was Samsung v United States but is not .[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 26 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT |
The verdict really should be overturned as a matter of law; the judge was using
the wrong legal standard for patent validity.
But since half the courts in the US have been doing that, how to get the courts
to realize this?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
