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
I don't see how possibly 'should have known' | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
I don't see how possibly 'should have known'
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:54 PM EDT
All the business with Hogan only happened AFTER the verdict.
If he said anything to anyone before then, he would be violating court orders
about not discussing the case prior to deliberations. I don't see how you can
conclude that, as a matter of course, one lawyer would discuss jurors with
another, unless the juror in question had been doing something to draw attention
to himself. Why else would this happen?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Who said the QE partner was even involved in this case
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 08:04 PM EDT
This is just another case, albeit a big one, that QE must be involved in at the
moment. Why would partners be discussing the jury of THIS case with their
spouses. Surely the jury is only of interest to the QE lawyers involved in THIS
case.

I didn't see that QE said that the spouse/partner of one of the lawyers/QE
partner involved in this case spotted the name, just that it was one of the QE
partners (does it even say they were from the same office?)

[ 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 )