|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:05 PM EDT |
Heinlein's second method of lying convincingly: tell the truth, but not all
of it. The foreman here was asked a question, and answered as if this one case
were the only one he'd been involved in. The trust was he'd been involved in
more, but he gave no hint of that in his answer. He knew at the time his
statements were giving a false impression, and did nothing to correct it. And it
appears, given the relationship between Samsung and the plaintiffs in the suits
he omitted, that he knew the cases he omitted mention of would be considered
relevant by Samsung.
I, by way of comparison, when asked the same
question would've answered with the number of suits I'd been involved in, and
let the judge and the attorneys take it from there. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
He was asked in a very expansive question if he or anyone close to him ever been
involved in a lawsuit. He raised his hand. The Judge asked him to explain why he
raised his hand. Her intent couldn't have been clearer, he then launched in to a
version of one lawsuit and clearly implies that is the sole reason he raised his
hand.
Do we even know if his description of that suit is accurate?
I haven't seen any record of that suit posted here but I could have missed it.
---
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: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:11 PM EDT |
I think you will make a bad witness.
I suppose anybody would remember all the law-suites they have been involved in,
and told that to the asking judge. To do anything else is not only sneaky but
also untruthful.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:46 PM EDT |
The blunt fact is that the parties are entitled to know, as part of the voir
dire process, all of the legal cases the potential jurors have been involved
in.
If that info wasn't revealed because the juror decided not to answer truthfully,
then the blame-arrow points at him; the effect is that a party was prejudiced,
and a new trial may be the only remedy.
If that info wasn't revealed because the judge didn't phrase the questions
correctly, then the blame-arrow points at her, and the effect is the same, and
the remedy is the same.
IANAL - but I don't think Samsung has to raise this issue unless Apple or Judge
Koh tries to excuse Mr. Hogan's incomplete voir dire on the grounds that the
question was poorly phrased. The law says the juror has to answer truthfully; I
don't see any law stating the judge's grammar requirements.
The question of who's to blame is very likely big enough to rescue Mr. Hogan
from facing any charges in this matter. It doesn't make any progress at all
toward rescuing the verdict.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:34 PM EDT |
I have to believe that Hogan actually knew he was in more than one lawsuit. I
doubt it slipped his memory, so when the question is raised he has to decide how
to answer.
Does he admit up front that he was involved in three or does he just answer to
one. How did he decide which one to admit to first. He had to pick one and
answer to that. Maybe he didn't want to admit to being sued into bankruptcy
because he was embarrassed so he chose one of the other lawsuits to admit to.
Unfortunately the court doesn't care whether you are embarrassed, they just want
the truth.
When asked if he'd ever been involved in a lawsuit the only truthful answer is
yes 3. Anything less than that is not the truth and attempting to justify his
not telling about his other lawsuits is simply playing with words to get an
answer you want. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
