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
What about addressing the same judge? | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What about addressing the same judge?
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 08:30 PM EDT
I doubt Samsung will get anything decided in its favor, reason being that they are addressing the same judge, who "steered the ship" to begin with.

Just ask yourself: How is it likely that this judge will agree that Samsung was indeed unfairly treated under her watch?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Juror misconduct.
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:13 PM EDT
I believe it's the redacted section.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Cases cited on pp 13&14 - Let's look 'em up!
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:26 PM EDT
L & W, Inc v Shertec, Inc. 471 F.3d 1311 ( Fed Cir 2006 ), (for p13)

Los Angeles Nut House v Holiday Hardware Corp. 825 F.2d 1351 (9th Cir
1987) (for p14)(also cited extensively in Apple's motion today)

Pennwalt Corp v Durand-Wayland, Inc. 833 F.2d 931 (Fed Cir 1987)(for
p13)

Two of three from Fed Circuit....I don't think these will address juror
malfeasance, but will instead have something to do with Industry practice
and magnitude of royalties. Don't argue with me, check out the cases and
add FACTS in the way of my nice theory!

(Christenson)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Dyer v Calderon, Reversal of conviction due to jury misconduct
Authored by: webster on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:21 PM EDT
.

This was criminal case with a murder conviction and death sentence. A juror did
not disclose her brother's shooting death and then made questionable statements
about it. The appeals court reversed due to the juror problems and the trial
judges inadequate handling of these problems. Juror bias was a reasonable
explanation for the juror's misconduct.

[btw for the first time I used Google Scholar for legal research.]

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Gibson v Clanon
Authored by: webster on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 11:45 PM EDT
.

This case shows how it is not enough to show misconduct. The misconduct had to
be relied on and cause the verdict.

Here the case is cited in another:

We find no well-established Florida principles of judicial review in the cases
cited by the dissent or in any other Florida or federal 484*484 cases which
permit an appellate court to find harmful error just because an error was
committed below. Absent proof of actual reliance by the jury, compare Gibson v.
Clanon, 633 F.2d 851 (9th Cir.1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1035, 101 S.Ct.
1749, 68 L.Ed.2d 231 (1981) (affidavit of jurors revealed jurors looked up
incidence of AB blood-type after court ruled evidence of AB incidence
inadmissible and looked up morphine dosage in medical encyclopedia) with Ezzard
v. State, 155 Ga. App. 594, 271 S.E.2d 728 (1980) (no reversible error in
display of exhibits not introduced into evidence when exhibits were at end of
prosecutor's table farthest from jury and transcript disclosed no effort to call
attention to the items ... beyond that normal to a trial), or absent the
presence of constitutional error, cf. Nowlin v. State, 346 So.2d 1020 (Fla.
1977) (placing burden on state and applying standard of "reasonable
possibility that error may have contributed to accused's conviction to
constitutional error), the standard of trial fairness applies, see, e.g., United
States v. Ford, supra, and the burden remains on the defendant to prove the
error resulted in an unfair trial, § 924.33, Fla. Stat. (1979); cf. State v.
Williams, 198 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1967) (error in displaying unintroduced and
incriminating evidence not fundamental error); Connor v. State, 106 So.2d 416
(Fla. 1958) (no prejudicial error where defendant's confession contained same
evidence as that erroneously exhibited); Wells v. State, 256 So.2d 580 (Fla. 3d
DCA 1972) (no reversible error in display of firearms not admitted into
evidence); DeLaine v. State, 230 So.2d 168 (Fla. 2d DCA 1970) (no reversible
error in display of clothing and bedding which did not connect defendant with
scene of crime, did not have gruesome quality or appearance, and did not tend to
prove crime more serious than charged). We note that in Alexander v. State, 288
So.2d 538 (Fla. 3d DCA 1974), the court based its opinion on the belief the
defendant was deprived of a constitutional right to confront witnesses and that
the Alexander opinion has not been followed, see G.E.G. v. State, 389 So.2d 325,
326 (Fla. 5th DCA 1980). In State v. Williams, 198 So.2d 21 (Fla. 1967), ...

Harrell v. State, 405 So. 2d 480 - Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 3rd Dist. 1981.

.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1)
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 23 2012 @ 03:06 AM EDT
BINGO!

Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1) cited for redacted section.

RULE 606. JUROR’S COMPETENCY AS A WITNESS

(a) At the Trial. A juror may not testify as a witness before the other jurors at the trial. If a juror is called to testify, the court must give a party an opportunity to object outside the jury’s presence.

(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.

(2) Exceptions. A juror may testify about whether:

(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury’s attention;

(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on any juror; or

(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the verdict form.

[ 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 )