|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 01:07 PM EDT |
Is anyone able to find a record of the law suit Hogan said he was involved in?
I mean the one in 2008 where his employee sued him. Is it possible this is
fabricated in his mind when in fact someone threatened to sue but didn't
proceed?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: dobbo on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 01:19 PM EDT |
PJ
I'm not arguing that Hogan didn't give a complete answer,
neither am I arguing that he couldn't have done better. Yes
his answer was incomplete.
But look at the written transcript, as posted by you:
"PROSPECTIVE JUROR: But like I said, we settled that --
because of documentation I had, we were able to settle it
out of court and then we went back to court one last time
for the dismissal paperwork."
"THE COURT: Okay. All right. Thank you.... So I want to
make sure that both Mr. Hogan, and Ms. Rougieri, that
you would apply the law as I instruct you and not based
on your understanding of the law based on your own cases.
Is that correct, Mr. Hogan?"
Look at what Koh says and the way she must have said it.
She accepts what Hogan has said, thanks him for it and moves
on without giving him a chance to introduce any more
examples.
Placing myself in Hogan's position I can understand that if
his first example was not an impediment to him being a juror
then, with the judge moving on, he assumed that neither
where his other examples.
Also courtrooms are intimidating places for us non-lawyer
types. As the judge was speaking I would not wish to
interrupt her and go back to a question that she has moved
on from. That would be discourteous at best, and not
something I can see myself doing in the same position.
From my reading of the transcript Hogan's failure to
disclose other examples is complete understandable.
As for your point about it being worse because all the jury
missed his "expert" testimony during deliberation again I
disagree. Laymen can not be expected to understand the
complexities of the law. You've often written that you need
a good lawyer when you get involved with the law.
How do they select foremen in the US? I thought they had to
select the foreman from amount themselves. That suggest
that Hogan was a charismatic person. It is, again, quite
understandable that the others missed the finer points of
outside "expert" testimony given his probable personality.
I only understand it now because I've been concentrating
that one point in the articles I've read from legal people,
here and on other websites. For the jury it must have been
one very small point in a whole list of legal points, and
not one obviously relevant to the case at hand.
I am not saying that what Hogan did wasn't wrong. What I am
saying is that it is understandable and the system must
allow for it. We have the Court of Appeal, as well as the
motion before Koh, to set aside this verdict if it appears
unsafe. And if it is understandable then Hogan should not
be put through the ringer either in court, the media or here
on your blog. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't
discuss why what he did was wrong, but it does me that we
mustn't crucify him for it.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
