|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
|
|
|