|
|
|
| Authored by: tknarr on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 12:35 PM EDT |
Except that in this case the bankruptcy was tied to and arose out of a legal
case against Seagate, who are now partially owned by and a part of Samsung. You
remember them, right? The defendants in the case this juror heard? I'd say his
having gone up against part of the defendant and been driven to bankruptcy by it
goes directly to motive for his insistence on "sending a message". Especially in
light of his having failed to mention this case despite clearly remembering it,
and given that his answer was phrased so as to imply the other case he described
was the only case he'd been involved in without actually denying that there'd
been more. That leads to the question "Why didn't he either limit his answer to
just "Yes.", the literal answer to the question as posed, or elaborate on
all the cases if he was going to go beyond the question as posed and
elaborate on any of them? Why be selective in your elaboration?".
The
notion of his believing there was a time limit doesn't wash. The initial
question didn't contain a time limit, it said "have you ever", and the judge
reinforced that by explicitly saying there was no time limit before Hogan was
questioned. In light of that, he cannot reasonably have believed there was a
point in time before which lawsuits didn't have to be mentioned. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 01:04 PM EDT |
Or in this case, for the details of his finances
regarding a
personal bankruptcy case long ago. Details that
are not at all related to his
jury service but rather serve
to smear his character.
If you do
not like the analysis then you are more than
welcome to provide an alternative
analysis that is supported
by the official documents. After all, this is just
public
information.
We would not care if he had provided relevant
information to
the Judge. Sure, the Judge should have followed up but there
was at least an moral obligation to list all cases (never
was the 10 years he
later said) when the Judge did not
follow up. So neither Samsung nor Apple had
the opportunity
to
know that the reason he failed to tell the court
about two other cases that involved a major tech company,
that now has a very
strong relationship to a party in this
case. Now is there further concern that
neither party was
able to get the fair trial required by law.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
The details of his bankrupsy are very much relevant to his jury service.
He claims that he was pushed into bankrupsy by a lawsuit filed against him by a
subsidary of one of the parties involved in the case he served on the jury for.
This goes to whether or not he was impartial or biased against Samsung from the
start.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 03:22 PM EDT |
Not really. He converted the jury into a lynch mob. And
boasted about it too. He said things like they wanted to make
it hurt, not a slap on the wrist.
This case is significant. This is setting a precedent about
trade dress in IT. This totally ignored prior art. When he
had a conflict of interest he should have excluded himself.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
