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
Sorry for paraphrasing | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Lets be fair to Hogan...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 03:04 PM EDT
Agreed. In fact, this Groklaw article is blatantly wrong about one major point:
Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party.

That claim is also repeated fervently by the author in Update 1. But according to the transcript, Hogan was specifically asked:
HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?

No instruction to "list all cases" is ever specified. In light of this context, the debate about "ever" versus the "10 years" remark is almost made irrelevant, because Hogan was actually instructed in the form of "Please identify yourself if you fit into this category" rather than "Please disclose everything you've ever experienced on this matter." The transcript shows that Hogan truthfully identified himself, volunteered the most recent example in the absence of further direct instructions, answered attorneys' questions to the best of his ability, and then the court moved on before he could volunteer more information.

Regardless of whatever Hogan's true intentions may have been, the Groklaw article's specific claim above is false. Whatever Hogan's reasons are, he did not violate the judge's instructions by not disclosing further information. And since much of the article builds on this claim to evaluate Hogan's character and Samsung's chances on this motion, I am also left to question the rest of the article. And because I have just first discovered this site from confused commentators at Ars Technica, this article's false claim leaves me with a negative first impression of the author, as well as the host site itself.

I hope a retraction will be included in a future update.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Sorry for paraphrasing
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 07:00 AM EDT
Hi, I wrote the original post here. Sorry for those who were
confused by the paraphrased quote - I thought the key part
of my argument was still clear.

Any how, if you actually read the transcript, there is no
doubt that even the Judge thought this was a yes or no
question, not a list all cases question. Because the
following is what she actually said:

THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER
BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF,
A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?
LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD
RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION?

I don't know how a question can be answered with the raise
of a hand if it is not a yes/no question. It is ultimately
the Judge's fault for not following up the questioning by
asking Hogan to list any other cases.

[ 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 )