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

PJ -- we need legal "expertise" on admissibilty of post trial jury statements. | 307 comments | Create New Account

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

PJ -- we need legal "expertise" on admissibilty of post trial jury statements.

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT

But I think we would all rather the case not get to a 50b
motion.

If we had began with a unbiased ( we can assume they were so
) uninfluenced ( that's what we're discussing ) jury, then
for Samsung to prevail, they would have to prove by a
"preponderance of the evidence". Now they have to prove to
the judge that "no reasonable jury". It's not clear exactly
what that phrase means, since a jury has not been given
instructions clarifying what it means, but I think it's
fairly close to "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Certainly it
raises the bar for Samsung significantly, simply because a
juror could not follow instructions.

However if the statements can be included in a motion for
mistrial, then I think whatever standard, Samsung would have
met it.

For that reason, I think that Samsung should be filing for a
mistrial.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

PJ -- we need legal "expertise" on admissibilty of post trial jury statements. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 04:05 PM EDT
- PJ -- we need legal "expertise" on admissibilty of post trial jury statements. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 10:14 PM EDT

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 )