decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
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

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1) | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Cases cited on pp 2&3 - Let's look 'em up!
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:37 PM EDT
I added three cases to the article now.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Pennwalt-Big can of worms
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 12:51 AM EDT
Including

Separating technical expertise from legal expertise in patent equivalents
EVERY element of a claim must be present for infringement, not just
equivalent functionality, especially when invention is not a pioneer, and
claims are pussyfooting around lots of prior art.
Lots of discussion of the metes and bounds of patent claims, balancing
inventor's versus public rights.
A finding of noninfringement moots a claim of invalidity

The dissent is also interesting...I think a close reading would actually reveal

the law to be self-contradictory. It's also incredibly loong!

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

In re Velvin R. Hogan, U.S. v. Perkins, U.S. v. Gonzalez
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT

In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan, Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993)

- To state the obvious is a bankruptcy matter concerning the jury foreman Velvin Hogan.

United States v. Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519 (11th Cir. 1984)

- Giving false denials of knowledge and memory, or evasive answers.

U nited States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109 (9th Cir. 2000)

- Whether juror could put their personal experience aside and serve impartially.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

U.S. v. Colombo,
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:36 AM EDT

United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149 (2d Cir. 1989)

- Juror desired to sit on case that she found intriguing.

- Deliberate untruthfulness of a potential juror's answer on voir dire.

- Statements made from one juror to another during the trial exposing the deceit.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:57 AM EDT

Rule 606. Juror’s Competency as a Witness

(b) During an Inquiry into the Validity of a Verdict or Indictment.

(1) Prohibited Testimony or Other Evidence. During an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury’s deliberations; the effect of anything on that juror’s or another juror’s vote; or any juror’s mental processes concerning the verdict or indictment. The court may not receive a juror’s affidavit or evidence of a juror’s statement on these matters.

I'm curious. Although I'm trying my hardest not to read into this, in U.S. v. Colombo, a juror made comments to an alternate during the trial that were later used to strike the verdict. This rule pertains only to deliberations so maybe anything outside is fair game and this may be the case here, that things were said before or after deliberations that are relevant. Hogan seems to be in a precarious situation in that he will be the author of the destruction of his own glorious work.

Sigh... I guess I'm not trying hard enough.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:11 AM EDT
Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30,
1993)

Uh-oh, Hogan again. I can't find anything but I can't help but wonder what
Hogan said here.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sea Hawk Seafoods v. Alyeska Pipeline
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:24 AM EDT

Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 206 F.3d 900 (9th Cir. 2000)

- Bizarre improprieties involving court staff and juror feeling threatened by comments from another juror.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cases cited on pp 13&14 - Let's look 'em up!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 04:21 AM EDT

Hard v. Burlington N. R.R., 812 f.2d 482 (9th Cir. 1987)

- Juror misrepresented himself during voir dire, also the same juror introduced extraneous and prejudicial information into the jury's deliberations.

- Regarding evidentiary hearings into jury misconduct,

While it is not always an abuse of discretion to fail to hold an evidentiary hearing when faced with allegations of juror misconduct, see Langford, 802 F.2d at 1180, it is preferable that a hearing be held, id.; United States v. Halbert, 712 F.2d 388, 389 (9th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1005, 104 S.Ct. 997, 79 L.Ed.2d 230 (1984). A court is to be guided by the content of the allegations, the seriousness of the alleged misconduct or bias, and the credibility of the source in determining whether a hearing must be held. United States v. Hendrix, 549 F.2d 1225, 1227-28 (9th Cir.1977) (citation omitted).

-Regarding post-verdict interviews, in this citation by lawyers ,

... post-verdict interviews with the jurors. While these interviews are not looked on favorably in this circuit, see Traver v. Meshriy, 627 F.2d 934, 941 (9th Cir.1980) (questioning jury about its internal deliberations or manner in which it arrived at its verdict should be discouraged); Smith v. Cupp, 457 F.2d 1098, 1100 (9th Cir.) (improper and unethical for lawyers to interview jurors to discover their course of deliberation), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 880, 93 S.Ct. 208, 34 L.Ed.2d 153 (1972), Ninth Circuit cases have often considered juror affidavits without discussing the propriety of post-verdict interviews, see, e.g., United States v. Langford, 802 F.2d 1176, 1180 (9th Cir.1986); United States v. Marques, 600 F.2d 742, 746 (9th Cir.1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1019, 100 S.Ct. 674, 62 L.Ed.2d 649 (1980). Since we had not joined other courts in holding that evidence acquired in post-verdict interviews conducted without leave of the court makes the evidence obtained inadmissible, the court could not refuse to consider the evidence on this ground.

- Evidence of jurors past personal experience being raised in deliberations can be used to impeach a jury verdict.

Jurors must rely on their past personal experiences when hearing a trial and deliberating on a verdict. Where, however, those experiences are related to the litigation, as they are here, they constitute extraneous evidence which may be used to impeach the jury's verdict. See Maldonado, 798 F.2d at 769-70; Gov't of the Virgin Islands v. Gereau, 523 F.2d 140, 150 (3d Cir.1975), cert. denied, 424 U.S. 917, 96 S.Ct. 1119, 47 L.Ed.2d 323 (1976); 3 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein's Evidence p 606 at 606-30 (1985). Since Fraser's statements constitute evidence of extraneous influence, testimony as to their occurrence should not be barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b). The court erred in ruling otherwise.

Judge Lucy might be feeling some pressure to expose this nonsensical verdict now.

More goodness here:

Ninth Circuit Jury Procedure Manual, 6.1 Post-Verdict Interview of Jurors

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Gibson v. Clanon
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 04:34 AM EDT
Gibson v. Clanon, 633 F.2d 851 (9th Cir. 1981)

25 We conclude that there is a reasonable possibility that the extrinsic evidence affected the verdict. Accordingly, the petitioners' writ of habeas corpus must be granted unless the State of California elects to grant a new trial within sixty days.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dyer v. Calderon
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 05:28 AM EDT

Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970 (9th Cir. 1998)

These reasons discuss juror bias but also the trial judges responsibility to adequately purse facts in a voir dire. It is a long decision and it would be very difficult to guess precisely which part is relevant to Samsung's argument.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cases cited on pp 13&14 - Let's look 'em up!
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 02:32 PM EDT
The key piece missing is the jury selection transcript. It's docket no. 1546, which is currently 404'ing here even though it's listed on the case page.

[ 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 )