|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:24 AM EDT |
Maybe, but it's a strong uphill climb.
He could state his memory wasn't clear, and he "misspoke."
He could claim he misunderstood the question, and thought
that "settled matters" weren't included. He could claim
that he was confused by all the questions and was
disoriented at the time, and tried to comply by mentioning
the one suit and forgot the others.
Weasel-ish? Sure, but hard to completely disprove. I know
I've answered questions incompletely when something "slipped
my mind" and only realized it later. To argue purjury, I
believe you have to prove willfulness.
As to the "deliberate attempt to lie his way onto a jury for
purpose of revenge," again hard to prove. Proving "intent"
is tricky. Sure, we could imagine him having such motive,
and there's a strong circumstantial case to be made.
But as proof of what was in his head, what his intention
was, PRIOR TO him hearing the evidence? (Remember, the
argument here is deliberate purjury in voir dire.) He could
claim he realized on hearing the evidence that he needed "to
send a message," not before. He could argue he didn't want
to apply his personal knowledge, but the case was so
confusing, and the jury form so convoluted, he couldn't
reasonably get a handle on it without applying his personal
experience.
I'm not saying he DIDN'T commit perjury. But proving
"criminal act" is "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: janolder on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:34 AM EDT |
I sure hope the law allows Samsung and Apple to collect
attorney's fees and costs from him for the wasted trial.
Facing some tens of millions in debt would sting him lot more
than spending a couple years in jail for perjury.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:01 PM EDT |
I doubt that will happen. The Judge may scold him and overturn the verdict but
criminal charges would be a bad idea.
---
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 | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 08:09 AM EDT |
.
Since we are talking here of a month or two of court hearings, months more of
law firms' and companies' trial preparations, other jurors time, witness, and
other costs, and the judges' time in chambers and at home reading,researching
and writing, someone may go the perjury route to reflect how serious this all
is.
Perjury is only prosecuted when someone says one thing under oath and then
returns in another proceeding and says something else contradictory under oath.
It is easy to prove that way. [E.G. a Defendant may make a deal and testify for
the prosecutor before the grand jury, but then a year later testify, against his
lawyer's advice, to other facts in the co-defendant's trial.]
If they have a hearing and subpoena Hogan, he should consult a lawyer. That
lawyer will have to get a copy of the voir dire transcript and review it to
advise Hogan. He will see the problem with Hogan's responses being possibly
misleading if not outright lies. He will tell him to invoke the fifth unless
granted immunity. If they grant him immunity, he must answer. With immunity he
can't incriminate himself. His problem is that if they ask him the same
question again, "Have you ever been involved in a suit or court
case?", his answer will be more extensive encompassing the case with
Seagate he omitted during trial.
To give Hogan a break, he is older and not as sharp as maybe he once was.
Anything or everything you say can be used against you even if you say the right
thing. The right thing can be compared with something else he said. Silence is
safe. Everything he said in court and to the press is fair game for
cross-examination. He shouldn't care about the parties, the trial or the
verdict. He needs some SPF 200 on his skin and tongue.
So might a frustrated judge or party attach transcripts and complain to the
local prosecutor? Maybe.
~webster~
. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
