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
korrections here ------> corrections here | 211 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
korrections here ------> corrections here
Authored by: PJ on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT
I just realized that we can narrow it down to cases
cited on the redacted pages. 13, 14.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Attacking a jury verdict...
Authored by: webster on Saturday, September 22 2012 @ 10:24 PM EDT
.

PJ, sorry to pick up your note so late but I was distracted by an oyster po boy.
I will look up a few cases.

This topic has screamed for attention since the verdict and the foreman's
running at the mouth, fortunately.

I would have looked something up but figured Samsung would do it.

What a disappointment that it is redacted! However redaction may be a very
hopeful sign that there is something in it unknown from the trial and aftermath,
and protective of other jurors who may have said something, in addition to/or in
reaction to, the loquacious foreman.

I have had some experience in this area. It is very difficult to second guess a
verdict, even by the jurors themselves or juror contradictions. The courts want
some finality of decision and control of process. Unless there is a showing of
misconduct, or not following instructions of the court, one can't get the judge
to look at the situation. Even then it has to be sufficiently
"prejudicial."

So Samsung will have to show that the jury didn't follow instructions
[misconduct], or made misrepresentations during voir dire. It also seems like
everyone deferred to the foreman to hear him tell it. That may not be a
problem.

The cases should show that it is difficult to go "behind" the
deliberation process. But there is enough of a mess here so that the judge can
justify doing what she wants either way. She may prefer to remain a hard ass,
rather than admit she rushed such a complex trial.

~web~

.

[ 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 )