|
|
|
| Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, August 29 2012 @ 01:59 PM EDT |
Here is a
link suggesting that something can be argued about juror misconduct. It is a
mighty high bar to reach, but an attempt may be made if I understand this site
correctly.
Thus, it is often an uphill battle for a losing litigant
to even be permitted to offer evidence of jury misconduct, let alone to be
granted a new trial on the basis of it. Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) shows
the difficulty of presenting evidence to “impeach” the jury verdict (and many
states have similar laws):
(b) Inquiry into validity of verdict or indictment.
Upon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not
testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury's
deliberations or to the effect of anything upon that or any other juror's mind
or emotions as influencing the juror to assent to or dissent from the verdict or
indictment or concerning the juror's mental processes in connection therewith,
except that a juror may testify on the question whether extraneous
prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention or
whether any outside influence was improperly brought to bear upon any juror. Nor
may a juror's affidavit or evidence of any statement by the juror concerning a
matter about which the juror would be precluded from testifying be received for
these purposes.
The bold part is from me. It appears that
extraneous prejudicial information has been brought to bear upon all jurors by
this foreman, namely an incorrect notion of what prior art is and a comparative
analysis of the technical capacities of the computer platforms for the prior
art. So I would imagine Samsung may try this argument to be granted a new trial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
