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
The court did ask. | 214 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
The court did ask.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 08:50 AM EDT
"Firstly, during the jury selection it was the Court that failed to ask
Hogan if he had any other examples of litigation that were relevant to the
case."
You are wrong. The Court did ask, and he did lie.

The American implementation of the jury system is broken from the start.
Rip up and retry!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Who's talking about prosecuting the jurors?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 08:58 AM EDT
I see a lot of speculation about mistakes by Hogan and the other jurors, but the
discussion I've seen about misconduct isn't related to prosecuting the jurors...
instead, it's about getting the suspect verdict vacated and re-trying the
case.

I think you're reading too much into the misconduct speculation. It's not like
they're being accused of fraud, corruption, malfeasance, or what-have-you.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hogan Ought NOT To Be Prosecuted
Authored by: alisonken1 on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 09:04 AM EDT
Do you mean this Groklaw article where the jury instructions were hilighted by PJ?
The judge, the Hon. William Alsup, in Oracle v. Google tells the prospective jurors that if they have some special knowledge on topics that will be important in the case, such as from a prior patent case, they can't use that in deciding this case but must only go by the evidence presented. If you recall, that is precisely how the jurors in Apple v. Samsung, in my view, failed. I'd like to show you what Judge Alsup said to his prospective jurors about this, so you can understand what bothers me so much about that Apple v. Samsung verdict, that is, the way it was reached. Thanks to the foreman giving multiple interviews to the media, we know how they reached a verdict, and it's very, very disturbing to anyone who knows what the rules are.

---
- Ken -
import std_disclaimer.py
Registered Linux user^W^WJohn Doe #296561
Slackin' since 1993
http://www.slackware.com

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hogan Ought NOT To Be Prosecuted
Authored by: stegu on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 09:05 AM EDT
I don't think jurors ought to be prosecuted for
failing to do their job right. I said Hogan "might
even risk facing some legal trouble", but even when
phrased in that very nonspecific way, I wouldn't
like to see it happen. It would be very hard to
get people to accept jury service if they ran the
risk of being imprisoned or fined for failure to
do things right, but it should be a simple matter
to throw out an unreasonable and inconsistent
verdict that was reached through such blatant
jury misconduct. This is not just a case of some
juror idly surfing the web about the case while
serving - it's a case of one juror actively misleading
all the others, ignoring the jury instructions and
instead making it his personal crusade to punish
Samsung for what he believes they did wrong.

Hogan is a person, and being a person he has flaws.
True, those flaws were unusually damaging in
this case, but that doesn't make him less human,
and the situation is not going to improve by
punishing him. He needs to be ignored, though.
If this verdict is allowed to stand, the legal
system is clearly incapable of keeping itself in
line with the law, and that would be very bad.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Agree.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 11:29 AM EDT
Hogan broke the promises he made to the Court; he can never
be trusted again.

But, the Court messed up too. The Court was is such a hurry,
set by some arbitrary timetable, to get things done that
they did a total disservice to both parties by not thorouly
vetting each juror.

The US legal system is clearly broken. Oh yes, we see it
working some of the time. The rest of the time it does
not do what it proclaims to do. To me, that is a broken
system.

That makes two out of the three branches of US government
that repeatedly show that they do not function to the
benefit of the citizens. I'll reserve comment on the
Executive branch since we have elections coming up.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • Agree.-not - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 04:15 PM EDT
negligence != innocence
Authored by: mcinsand on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT
Hogan was irresponsible and negligent when he failed to follow the jury
instructions. Prosecution is appropriate, as it would be for anyone in a
lawsuit that does not follow the judge's instructions.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hogan Ought NOT To Be Prosecuted
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, September 27 2012 @ 06:46 AM EDT

I must say that I find all this talk damning Hogan to be very unsettling. Sure, the guy didn't do his job properly, but that is no reason to pin the poor guy to a wall
I don't know about the USA, but this side of the pond in the UK we have this charge of "Contempt of Court".

In one of his interviews (noted and commented on in Groklaw before) Logan says that they (the jury) decided to set the damages so as to punish not just to compensate for loses. However, in the jury instructions read out in court and before them during deliberations they were told to only set damages to compensate for loss, the court (Judge) would deal with increasing damages to punish.

Clearly Hogan has shown contempt for Judge Koh's (the Court's) instructions and at minimum is guilty of "contempt of court". The rest of the jury aided and abbetted this in not taking him to task over it, but as foreman he should have been ensuring that the court's (judge's) instructions were followed?

[ 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 )