|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT |
The actual question was implied not spoken expressly.
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?
ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.
The jurors answer the actual question simply by raising
their card.
So what is a reasonable understanding of "ALL RIGHT. LET'S
GO TO MR. HOGAN"?
Aside from that, I will volunteer that while Mr. Hogan could
get off this by a long list of reasonable excuses, he will
jump in with both feet and say something stupid again. That
is why Samsung wants a hearing and Apple wants to avoid it.
There is no way this guy will keep together with a blood
hound type trial lawyer smelling blood questioning him.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:09 PM EDT |
She's a judge. If she has a choice between admitting she
asked a question poorly, and hammering some schlub who misled
her with contempt of court and a strong recommendation of
perjury charges, it doesn't take an experienced litigator to
predict the outcome of that choice.
And now she has exactly that choice.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:29 PM EDT |
The actions of this judge are a huge part of the problem IMHO.
It seems that in her efforts to fast-track the trial to reduce time and costs
she
has denied both sides a fair hearing and has not given people, even the jurors,
opportunity to fully answer the questions given. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
