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
Ignorance of the law? | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
You'd like to see a retraction?
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 | # ]

Ignorance of the law?
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 | # ]

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 )