It would appear this is a case of failure to disclose. In the current news
pick Samsung goes after jury
foreman in bid to reverse Apple verdict:
Hogan told us Tuesday
that he didn't mention the 1993 Seagate case or bankruptcy in the jury selection
process because he wasn't asked specifically to disclose every case he'd ever
been involved in. According to a complete transcript of
voir dire, Koh asked jurors, "Have you or a family member or someone very
close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant
or as a witness?" In answering that question, Hogan said that in 2008, after the
failure of a company he founded, a programmer sued him in a dispute over
ownership of software they developed. He also said he lost his house after his
start-up failed (and disclosed his ownership of a patent), but he did not
mention the 1993 cases.
You can easily construct concerns not
covered in the Reuter's article which mentions whether or not disclosure affects
the outcome of jury deliberation. You could imagine the failure to disclose
might address the ability of the juror to be true to his commitment to set aside
any personal experiences or knowledge and deliberate based on evidence
presented. Defensive rationalizations aside failure to disclose might be
interpreted to show mental reservation inadvertent or not.
Reading through
the entire voir dire proceedings transcript (PDF 466 KB) the juror's name is
mentioned 18 times, around 14 times in interrogatories from the court. You'd
think he might have had plenty of opportunity to mention the earlier
case.
Now would that have been enough to tip him out of consideration for
the jury? We already have comment from him on being interviewed after the trial
how he was surprised he was selected.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
