|
|
|
| Authored by: dyfet on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:45 AM EDT |
Exactly, his appearant "glee" at being able to retell how he
"helped" the jury "get" Samsung seems to say a lot about his
own undisclosed issues, and how they really do seem to effect his thinking. I
have never heard of a juror on such a case give interviews before, so he is not
simply unique among the other jurors on this particular jury, but I think in
regard to most.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:37 AM EDT |
And given that this guy is giving out interviews containing
recollections about
the questions he was asked that do not match the official
transcript, well,
let's just say that someone has some explaining to
do.
Jury duty is a duty, and if you mess up because of personal
incapacities, that's nothing one can sue you for. However, since it is obvious
that Hogan's memory is not sufficient for recalling his own statements and
questions directed at him, he can't be expected to do better with remembering
the rest of the case.
So it is clear that his exposed position of jury
foreman was not something for which his memory made him suitable. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 03:09 PM EDT |
The part that jumped out to me, even before we knew what was asked in voir dire
questioning, was his "aha" moment.
In his own words, he was looking for "how would I protect this
patent?" But the jury isn't there to 'protect'. In fact, one of the
questions to the jury is "is this protectable?".
Mr. Hogan skipped that little detail, decided unilaterally that it needed
protection, and proceeded from there to make sure that evil Samsung was punished
and Apple got the 'protection' they 'deserved'.
On top of what we know now, Samsung never had a chance with this guy, he'd
convicted them in his mind before the trial even started.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
