|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:35 AM EDT |
References please? Otherwise, look at the comments from previous posts, and find
references counter to yours. Unfortunately, none of them from a Federal court.
Plus, in Oracle vs Google, the judge overruled one part of jury verdict, not the
entire thing, but not on the basis of what the jury discussed.
The foreman of the jury just has a big mouth, and its going to get his verdict
into trouble.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT |
It's a very fine line, but I think Samsung could argue it.
This isn't about the amount of deliberation they engaged in. They could have
tossed a coin and it would probably stand.
Mistrials and contempt proceedings have been the outcomes in several cases where
juries have consulted evidence outside the court-room. That is not the case
here.
However the foreman offered his personal opinion in much the same way as an
expert witness. Added to which he is on record as ascribing the verdict to a
legal theory which is incorrect and therefore does not arise from the jury
instructions. It could be argued that they strayed into the realm of law
IANAL, and the number of cases where action has been taken on juror misbehaviour
after the verdict has been announced is vanishingly small. This behaviour may be
described as using personal experience, which is allowed. So it is by no means a
slam-dunk for Samsung, no matter how infuriating.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
