|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 08:10 PM EDT |
It really doesn't matter how they found out.
The behaviour in question by the foreman involves multiple misconducts, any one
of which could be grounds for overturning the verdict.
Finger pointing after the fact is simply more of Apple trying to make things
difficult. All that matters is the verdict was tainted.
Talk of pressing charges on Hogan, will certainly be ignored unless there is
very clear evidence of some kind of payment or planning, simply because no judge
is going to want prospective jurors to feel intimidated about their involvement.
He made a mistake, end of matter. Strategic malfeasance by the attorneys of
either side will be looked at, but absent convincing evidence that one side
gamed the system, it will also be ignored. Attorneys are supposed to be
zealous.
The judge can nullify the verdict on procedural grounds, with no finger
pointing, and that is the most likely outcome.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:37 AM EDT |
He has a weird name (how many Velvins do you know?) and he gave a ton of
interviews right after the verdict. I know that I, personally, had followed
this case the whole time and that I, personally, have no idea who else was on
that jury, except for this guy.
So it's not at all hard to believe that the husband of one of the Samsung
lawyers did a double-take after reading one of his many interviews and suddenly
realized that this was the same Velvin he sued twenty years ago.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: mcinsand on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT |
As I think I (sort of) pointed out elsewhere, even if the spouse remembered
Velvin's name, birthday, and driver's license number, to expect it to come up in
evening conversation is logistically ridiculous. Even if I have a huge project
going on at work, I am not going to have the time physically to review every
detail at home, and this is especially true when the activity level is at the
highest. Forget whether sharing such information as an attorney could be cause
for sanctions; even if sharing were not a concern, I don't see how anyone
rational would expect it to be likely that evening discussions would drill down
to the level of names of all of the courtroom parties involved. Sure, it could
conceivably happen, but I don't see how it could be a reasonable expectation.
Unless... and I hate to undercut myself, but I do make an effort at honesty.
Mr. Hogan's name does stand out. I'm not tryint to be a jerk, but I can imagine
myself blurting out something like this over dinner, 'some parents actually
named their kid 'Velvin! What kind of parents would do that to a child?'
Again, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I am trying to see where I might be
wrong.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT |
It is a legal document, that declares as fact, that the Seagate lawyer is
married to an Emmanuel Quinn lawyer.
And pretty much screams that the connection is important.
While I would expect Emmanuel Quinn to declare the connection (if they were even
aware of it) if it wasn't important, it would have been a footnote in that
case.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
