|
|
|
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:35 PM EDT |
I'd be careful if I were you ... there's a fair few old-timers here who would
agree with the grandparent. Look at my user number!
And while I may agree whole-heartedly with the negative feelings about Mr
Hogan's conduct in the jury room, from reading the transcript of the voir dire I
feel I have to place pretty much ALL the blame on the Judge. Because she did
what she seems to have done all along - rushed things and not bothered to do the
job properly.
I cannot find ANYwhere in the transcript where Hogan behaved differently from
how I expect I would have behaved in the same position. Whether such behaviour
was correct, I won't comment, but his behaviour (from the transcript) seems to
be natural, flowing normally, and in accordance with the agenda set by the
Judge.
Now if you ask me whether that agenda was done properly ...
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:02 PM EDT |
I'm afraid your characterization of my argument bears little
to no resemblance
of my actual argument. I am not choosing
sides, nor have I generated any of my
own assumptions over
Mr. Hogan's motives. I even agree with your implied points
regarding the purpose of voir dire and the embodiment of
law. I'll even
concede in advance that Samsung was indeed
denied an important opportunity to
discover critical
information that may have prevented this juror from
remaining. My primary point was not regarding any of these
matters.
As you stated, "PJ cited facts from the transcript." My
primary point is that one of those "facts" does not match
the transcript. The
discrepancy between the author's version
of the story and the actual transcript
is significant,
because it possibly changes the perception of Hogan's
actions
here. If Hogan had omitted the Seagate lawsuit in
violation of an immediately
prior instruction by the judge
to list everything, then it's pretty easy to
label his
actions as deceptive. But based on the actual line of
questioning
from the transcript, that alleged deception
becomes reasonably questionable, as
it can now be argued
that the voir dire process might have been handled
incorrectly by the judge or attorneys. And whether that
argument is correct or
not, it at least deserves to be heard
and considered for proper justice to take
place.
I'm all for people questioning the degree to which Hogan
fulfilled his judicial responsibility. I just find it
frustrating that people
are bringing false information to
this argument. Several posters at Ars
Technica have rebutted
others by citing this article, not knowing that the
"fact"
they are citing is actually falsified by the primary source.
So yes, I
think a retraction is appropriate so that
followers of this story can
reasonably debate over actual
facts instead of invented ones.
If you
think the suggestion of a retraction is out of line,
I will definitely consider
your arguments against it, though
I ask that you please refrain from the
condescending
sarcasm.
Thank you.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
