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
More likely he didn't disclose it in voir dire. | 458 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
More likely he didn't disclose it in voir dire.
Authored by: dio gratia on Tuesday, September 25 2012 @ 07:33 PM EDT

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 | # ]

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 )