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
My guess - "Knew or should have known" | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
My guess - "Knew or should have known"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:31 AM EDT
Would there be any reason for them to discuss the juror names
in this case in order for this to come up prior to his name
being in the media connected to this case?

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Juror identities are not disclosed
Authored by: Winter on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:35 AM EDT
"There's a reasonable argument here that Samsung's "my wife just
remembered!" argument is as suspicious as the "aha!" moment in
terms of suspicious fortuitous coincidence."

This is a rather disingenuous argument.

Juror identities are not disclosed. A lawyer is most certainly not expected to
disclose juror details to anyone (they do, but not openly). So any spouse (M/F)
would never hear about the fact that Hogan was in the jury.

And any lawyer can defend themselves by claiming they did the right thing by
*not* discussing jurors with anyone outside the case.


---
Some say the sun rises in the east, some say it rises in the west; the truth
lies probably somewhere in between.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

That cuts both ways...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:15 PM EDT
I suspect they'll argue Samsung knew this all along (or should have if they did their homework).

If this argument works against Samsung, it also works against Apple. The perjury in VD threatens a verdict that is quite favorable to Apple. If Apple had done this "homework", they could have gotten this joker tossed before the case went to the jury, and then their favorable verdict would have been safe, assuming that the favorable verdict did not depend on the presence of this perjurer in the jury.

Most people looking at this are convinced that without Hogan the verdict would have been much less favorable to Apple, but Apple can't argue that they should benefit from injustice. If this guy shouldn't have been on the jury, Apple have to argue that his presence either made no difference or actually helped Samsung. Neither of those propositions meshes well with reality.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My guess - "Knew or should have known"
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:29 PM EDT
We may see an affidavit from one of both of the attorneys describing how they
connected the dots in response to Apple's latest. I think the Judge will want to
know.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Looking at the wrong nut
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:41 PM EDT
The nut of Samsung's argument is that Hogan lied in VD. The prior history
reveals reason for Hogan to have lied in the first place. To place focus on
questioning the possible motive while ignoring the wrongdoing is misdirection.
For whatever reason, Hogan was not honest in VD, that is the standard that can
get the verdict and trial tossed. Anything else that surrounds that simply
strengthens the chance of a new trial. Take it away, and you still have enough
for a new trial.

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My guess - "Knew or should have known"
Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:44 PM EDT
You are forgetting something. The judge isn't
in this instance looking to see who is right,
Apple or Samsung. Of course Apple will argue
it's too late.

She has a much more important
job -- to decide if this jury failed sufficiently
that the verdict is tainted. If so, she will
act. If not, she won't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

My guess - "Knew or should have known"
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:20 PM EDT

It would appear from the recent Bloomberg piece Apple has been in contact with the foreman. The speculation on Samsung having foreknowledge of his lack of Voir Dire forthrightness seems to originate with them.

He added that he’s surprised Samsung didn’t know about the history it’s now citing given the relationship the lawyer Samsung refers to in its filing has with another lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the firm representing the company.

Hogan said yesterday’s filing has him wondering whether Samsung “let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.”

The meme only benefits Apple or in the foreman's instance advances his case in the court of public opinion.

Consider the possibility Samsung is being forthright. The badgering email from Apple to Samsung on the matter appears to be intended to allow Apple to formulate a defense.

Defense from what, the truth? The actual issue here is Samsung's right to a fair trial by jury under the Fifth and Seventh Amendments.

Apple appears to be trying to intimate Samsung is perpetrating fraud on the court without doing so in a representation to the court, relying instead on public media.

A war of nerves and control of the case. After the email exchange in Exhibit A I don't see Samsung flinching. In Ms. Estrich's declaration (Apple v Samsung 2012):

In response to Samsung’s motion detailing Velvin Hogan’s failure to reveal his litigation with Seagate during voir dire and its impact on the integrity of the trial and the verdict, Apple demanded that Samsung disclose the timing of its knowledge regarding those facts. A true and correct copy of Apple’s email, along with further correspondence between counsel for the parties that resulted in Apple’s agreement that any such disclosures would not constitute a waiver of any privilege, is attached hereto as Exhibit A By way of separate declaration, Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate until after the verdict. To date, Apple has not revealed whether it was aware of Mr. Hogan’s litigation against Seagate prior to the verdict or prior to Samsung’s Motion.
Apple wouldn't likely succeed following this line. They're stuck trying to prop up Mr. Hogan's public statements, arguing the law or acceding to Samsung's "allegations that the judicial process was tainted" (Mr. Bartlett, Exhibit A).

[ 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 )