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
not the Judge's fault at all | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
not the Judge's fault at all
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT
An honest juror would have volunteered the information that there were other cases, since it is obvious to anyone with more intelligence than a rock that the Judge wants to know about ANY cases.

A lie by omission is still a lie. Hogan was dishonest in the way he answered the questions about his litigation history. He quite deliberately gave the impression that he had only had that one lawsuit, and did not mention at all being sued by his former employer Seagate, or declaring bankruptcy.

The question now is whether he was just foolish or absent-minded, or whether he was malicious and wanted to get on the jury to have a chance to punish Samsung (who owns a large chunk of his old nemesis, Seagate). Either way, things look bad.

The application of justice should not only try to be done as fairly as possible; it also has to be seen to be fair. Even things that give the appearance of unfairness (as this whole trial certainly does) ought to be avoided, because they decrease everyone's trust in the rule of law.

Right now, this trial stinks to high heaven. I don't think anything short of a whole new trial with a different Judge is going to convince me that Samsung got a fair trial.

[ 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 )