|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, October 05 2012 @ 01:50 AM EDT |
I am ignorant of the law. And posting anonymous...
The judge's question was backwards, and implied singular
with regards to the number of lawsuits that Hogan was
involved in.
"Have you ever been involved in a lawsuit"
If the judge wanted to know Hogans history of lawsuits, the
question could have been:
"How many and what lawsuits have you been in"
"What lawsuits have you ever been involved in"
Now, I am not a lawyer, and I get it that the question was
trying to establish a full history. But, Hogan isn't a
lawyer.
Hogan (may have?) mis-interpreted the <i>intent</i> of the
question. He may have mis-interpreted the question to ask
him if he had any experience with how the law worked, and to
lay it out.
Obviously, the question was actually trying to determine
more about him than he assumed. Remember, this is a guy
that went into jury deliberations with the intent of
defending the patents and turning the minds of his fellow
jurors with his experience.
This guy wanted to <i>send a message</i> to patent
infringers that you have to be careful of patent
infringement or a <b>jury</b> might decide to punish you!
This guy is <i>trying really hard</i> to be a
<b>lawyer</b>
but he doesn't know the law. He was trying to look
"informed" about the legal process, because he thought that
was why they were asking him these questions.
In reality they just wanted to know if he was appropriate
for the case. Turns out, he wasn't, and it wasn't
discovered because the question asked of a <b>lay person</b>
wasn't asked in a clear way.
(another example?)
Q: "Have you ever ridden a bike?"
Would you answer (assuming both are equally factual)
A) "Yes, just last week I rode to the store"
B) "Yes, I rode to the store last week, and before that I
used to ride to school every day. During that period I also
used to ride with my friends everywhere. But sometimes I
would only ride alone on the weekends. This one time ..."
If you were trying to look "good" (impress your potential
bike-riding buddy) you *might* say.
C) "Yes, I once rode to the top of a mountain"
Hogan was trying to impress his potential friends. Trying to
impress the judge and lawyers with his experience. He
forgot he and his history was being evaluated regarding
appropriateness.
I dunno. Hard to explain. "Lawsuit" is singular. The
question as stated asked for a single lawsuit experience.
"Have you ever been involved in legal disputes in the past"
"Have you ever been involved in any lawsuits in the past"
At least they have a plural in there. "A lawsuit" is as
singular as you get.
* IANAL (obviously), and I agree Hogan did the wrong thing.
But he clearly misunderstood the *reason* for the question.
I do not believe he misunderstood the *question as asked*,
and I do not believe he lied (by not reporting the whole
truth) as again, his interpretation of the reason for the
question is just as important as his answer.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 07:59 AM EDT |
The law has nothing to do with it. The initial point raised was whether the
Groklaw article was accurate in stating that jurors were "specifically
asked ... to list all cases any of them was ever involved in".
One doesn't have to know the law, the expectations of the voire dire process, or
even what Mr Hogan's response was in order to evaluate the accuracy of the
Groklaw article's statement. One only needs to examine the transcript to see if
the question was "specifically asked".
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|