|
|
|
| Authored by: dobbo on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:21 AM EDT |
Judge Koh asked the possible jury members if any of them had
been involved "in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a
defendant, or as a witness?" Hogan and at least on other
indicated that they had. Koh question Hogan further but I
didn't read in Samsun's motion (as reported in "Apple v.
Samsung Voir Dire Reveals Broken Promises (Docket 1979-
1993)" that she asked Hogan if he had any more than the
example he gave.
This was her court. She is the expert on the law and it was
her job to find out if any of the prospective jurors were
eligible or not. If she failed to ask the right questions
to get the answers she needed to do her job then the fault
is clearly hers.
It is not, and cannot be, a prospective jurors role to
volunteer information - that would vastly extend what is
already a long process. How can one not trained in the law
know what from their past is relivent or not. Koh, herself,
later said that it was her role, and hers alone, to provide
that guidance.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 26 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT |
The American implementation of the jury system is broken from the
start.
Rip up and retry!
I see this sentiment expressed
quite often on Groklaw, but never any suggestions how to improve it.
How
do you suggest we inprove it?
Let's see, jurors make mistakes, so get rid
of them.
Lawyers take every advantage, sometimes even unfair advantage,
to win a case for a client. So we get rid of them.
Even judges can be
uninformed or misinformed or sometimes prejudiced or just make a mistake. So
they gotta go.
So we're left with... what?
I'm seriously
curious. How do people suggest we improve the judicial system to remove all
human frailties and foibles so it never makes a mistake again. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
