I'll try and make this simple. Most of this is under the
rubric of "you don't get to litigate 'what-ifs', because a
jury verdict comes clouded in a presumption of correctness.
Moreover, there is a strong public policy in favor of never
going after the jury."
So, let me make it simple-
1. The court has no super-duper duty to get it right that
attaches in a patent case over, say, a criminal case. I am
quite sure that the individual in Tanner was more concerned
about his case than you are about this case. Moreover, this
is about a principle of law; the principle of Tanner is what
I was talking about. In lay terms, if a case applies an
application of law about cars, you don't usually win by
saying "Yer honor, that was a green car, and this is a red
car!"
2. No, you're totally incorrect. Whether he was involved in
litigation is relevant. Whether he did something with his
mortgage, or whether you believed he perjured himself in
that litigation, is irrelevant.
3. You don't understand how BigLaw firms work. Not only does
QE have a team of lawyers there (in trial), and there (at
the site), and there (at the offices) looking at these
issues and researching it, they do followup research. If
this was a serious issue, they could've raised and asked for
an alternate after VD, assuming that they didn't catch it
during VD.
4. I don't blame them for raising the issue. Personally, I
always find juror attacks desperate, and the sign of either
a kitchen sink approach or people who know they're going to
lose. It tends to piss off judges. Absent bribery or
coercion, they're losing issues. But it's at least
colorable. What I don't like is people attacking a juror for
non-relevant issues, and combing through files to find more
information about him to attack him with that *doesn't
matter*. Not cool.
5. I'm more interested in the legal issues than the outcome.
I suggest you relax, and enjoy the finest minds that
billable hours can buy.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
