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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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
Hogan is talking again! | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Hogan is talking again!
Authored by: PolR on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 03:57 PM EDT
Judges don't want to moot entire trials on minor points. They want the trial to
be done for good when a verdict is reached. They don't grant new trials just
because attorneys find defects in how the jury reached a conclusion. If judges
start doing that no trial will ever be over because attorneys always find
something to argue about.

The precedents are that judges don't care about jury misconduct after the trial
is over unless it is proven the misconduct affected the outcome of the trial.

These old cases didn't affect the outcome in a visible way. They are point of
details that show this juror took his oath lightly. The judge won't moot the
trial on this basis but she may become more willing to consider the bigger
arguments. Think of this as some small bonus points added to Samsung's main
argument. They are not enough to win but they help.

The big items are the broken promises PJ mentions in the main article and this
juror admitted disregard for the jury instructions and the law. This is
misconduct which has affected the outcome of the trial. These are the points
that really matter.

IANAL.

[ 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 )