|
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Sunday, October 07 2012 @ 05:56 PM EDT |
The article means during and after voir dire. While
it is going on, there are jury experts that a company
like Samsung would have hired to be there and to be
searching for any reasons not to let the person be
on the jury.
However, in this case, it was a local court, not
federal district court, and so old in time it
almost predates the Internet being used for
digital cases, so there would have been
nothing to find online in time.
Try even now to find the Seagate case online. It's
not easy even now. I daresay without the Quinn
Emanuel lawyer's husband remembering the case, it
might never have surfaced except when someone
eventually found the bankruptcy and looked through
it thoroughly and noticed the claim. But voir
dire is only half a day, so some arcane things
don't show up fast enough, when the juror has
provided zero clues.
And the lawyers have the names from voir dire, so
it's not a question of needing lists.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 08 2012 @ 11:56 AM EDT |
Of course The Verge's article isn't reasonable. Did you expect impartiality or
fairness from a columnist whose Twitter username is made mostly of Apple
trademark?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
