|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 03:38 PM EDT |
PJ cited facts from the transcript.
You cited your interpretation.
You're left with a negative impression of the author, the site, it's owner,
etcetera...
Awww... ya' must be just heartbroken.
I could suggest you read up on the reasons and the intent behind the voir dire
questioning, what the law says, and what has happened in related cases, but I'm
sure it would just upset you more.
But just think about this for a moment: you're approaching it as though the
whole embodiment of law is defined by the actual verbage that came from the
judge's lips. That would get Mr. Hogan off this particular hook, in part, if
skewed just right; but, it would put him on another hook (well, one he's already
on, but in a worse way) about his not following the judge's instructions in
deliberations.
Just wanted to give you a heads-up in time that you might avoid that little
double-standard thing before you get caught in it.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: PJ on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:46 PM EDT |
Don't be silly. "Have you ever been involved in
a lawsuit" means ever, at any time in your
lifetime. List them all. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 07:54 AM EDT |
I agree with you that you can interpret the question the way you did. And that
it is possible that Hogan did not understand the question the way he should
have. Apparently, for those with legal training, the question
THE
NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU
EVER
BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF,
A DEFENDANT, OR AS A
WITNESS?
translates to
Have you or a family member or
someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit ether as a plaintiffm
a defendant or as a witness? List all cases.
Since a judge is
legally trained, that is what she would have understood her question to
imply.
But did Hogan perceive that he had to list only one case in order to
answer the question fully? He is quoted to have said the following to
Bloomberg:
Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there
was any misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential jurors required
disclosure of any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years --
and that the 1993 bankruptcy and related litigation involving Seagate fell well
outside that time range.
“Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time
constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” Hogan said, referring to the
bankruptcy and related litigation. “I’m willing to go in front of the judge to
tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding
anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”
Especially the
Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint bit is
telling. It means that, apart from e 10-year time restraint, he would have
understood a need to disclose those cases as well.
Since we can all agree there
was no time restraint, Hogan knew he should have disclosed all cases. So it was
clear to him he was not telling the whole truth, even though he was answering
the question with only truth.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
