Groklaw - Digging for Truth

	When you want to know more...

Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines

ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster

You assume that each juror was not thinking about the case when they weren't "deliberating" | 871 comments | Create New Account

Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.

You assume that each juror was not thinking about the case when they weren't "deliberating"

Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 27 2012 @ 11:58 PM EDT

...then someone can tick off the check boxes broadly agreed to, while the controversial 2% is discussed.

And be excluded from the debate over the controversial 2% whilst they do so?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

You assume that each juror was not thinking about the case when they weren't "deliberating" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT

You assume that each juror was not thinking about the case when they weren't "deliberating"

Authored by: jonathon on Tuesday, August 28 2012 @ 01:22 PM EDT

Regardless of which way the verdict went, if the jury had spent less than
100 hours in deliberation, I would have considered them to have failed to
thoughtfully deliberate, and come to a just, sound, and valid verdict.

At 117 hours, the jury would have spent roughly ten minutes per question.
That is barely enough time to give thoughtful and full consideration to all
aspects of each question, during deliberations.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )