|
Authored by: dio gratia on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:25 AM EDT |
Well I didn't get surprised when Section I was released, managed to hit spot
on with the Samsung hard disk business ( Apple Files Motion for JMOL, New Trial; Opposes Samsung's
Do-Not-Contact-Jury Request ~pj - comments).
Sort of figure the reason why
the Judge was showing displeasure with Samsung is that they have a better than
average chance with misconduct at least on appeal.
"The attorney
who sued Mr. Hogan on Seagate’s behalf is the husband of a Quinn Emanuel
partner." So that is how they found out. But the operative question is, when?
The jury foreman's name didn't become generally known until all
those interviews (Exhibits to Ms. Estrich's declaration). You may have had Mr.
Grady reading the newspaper or a magazine (on an iPad, natch) at breakfast and
having an ah-ha moment of name recognition. Maybe someone choked on their
coffee or juice.
Just goes to show the foreman's 15 minutes of
fame infamy may have gone around fifteen minutes too long.
Pity he didn't make it all the way to Letterman.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:15 AM EDT |
From exhibit http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013ExL.pdf
page 5 which happens to be from a BBC interview ...
------------------
Do you think if you hadn't been on the jury then
we might have ended up with a very different verdict?
I think so. But let's not say me specifically.
Let's say if there had not been an individual who had
the technical background, and there had not been
an individual who had gone through the process,
the verdict might have been different, or it might
have been the same.
I believe that the jury system in this country stands.
The individuals would have ultimately come to a verdict.
It might have been a lot longer.
But what definitely would have been required is passing
more questions to the judge and having them come back.
In our case we didn't have to.
-------------------------
So Hogan thinks he may have influenced the verdict.
Hogan also says that without him, there would have been more questions to
the judge, as if that were a bad thing. But instead of the proper legal
responses that the judge would have given, instead we get Hogan advising
or mis-advising the jury, which by his own admission might have come to
a different verdict without him. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:02 AM EDT |
..even though he has obviously a despicable character.
He was asked 'have any of you ever been involved in A legal
case'.
That question does not necessarily imply that you need to
disclose all cases. In fact it does not imply anything but
an answer of YES, irrespective of the number of cases you
have been involved in. The judge or Samsung should have
followed her interrogation with - 'are there any other cases
you were involved with?'. They didn't. In fact from the
transcript after the questioning Hogan says 'I..Ummm' but is
then interrupted by the Judge who moves onto question the
other Juror.
He is obviously not very bright - if he had read the
transcript he could have said that he was going to mention
the other cases but was interrupted. Instead he has been
running his mouth without thinking again and ending up
telling a provable lie. He really is a blessing to Samsung's
case.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|