|
|
|
| Authored by: blaisepascal on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
What is the practical difference between putting aside the
verdict and having another trial and declaring a mistrial? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: imperial on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT |
There may well be grounds to consider jury misconduct.
The refusal to follow the judges instructions and the conduct of the
deliberations all occurred before a verdict was issued. Whether Judge Koh
considers that grounds for a mistrial is a significant question.
Certainly, I think the appeals court will consider it more than sufficient
grounds to order the case to be retried.
INAL, but I cannot see how the conduct of the jury could be accepted by any of
the players in this. I think, even Apple, while happy with the result would have
concerns over these issues, if for no other reason than it throws the result
into doubt.
Not a lot of good PR to be found in trumpeting a dodgy decision but potentially
plenty of negative PR instead.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 11:17 PM EDT |
How about FCRP rule
59? Here is an extract:
(a) In General.
(1)
Grounds for New Trial. The court may, on motion, grant a new trial on all or
some of the issues—and to any party—as follows:
(A) after a jury
trial, for any reason for which a new trial has heretofore been granted in an
action at law in federal court; or
So
according to the plain text of this rule a court has to power of granting a new
trial even though the the jury trial is over. Whether the court will do it and
whether there are applicable precedents, I don't know. But the plain text of the
rule doesn't preclude this possibility.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
