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
This is not lying. | 83 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
lying to the jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:05 PM EDT
Judges never lie, they only indulge in terminological inexactitude!

Jon

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

MUST?
Authored by: ChrisP on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 08:24 PM EDT
In criminal trials the instructions will say something like, if the evidence of
guilt is beyond a reasonable doubt the jury must find the defendant guilty. This
ignores jury nullification where the jury can return a verdict of innocent
despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, perhaps usually in public
interest cases.

In this civil trial, the jury largely appears to have done the opposite of
nullification for a number of reasons discussed here and elsewhere. They found
Samsung 'guilty' of infringement when the evidence, some suppressed, and the
law, had it been properly explained to and interpreted by the jury, would have
'required' a verdict of 'innocent'. The judicial process has failed the
defendant again.

I note that in Gary McKinnon's case, it was a political process, not a judicial
one, that produced the right result eventually.

---
Gravity sucks, supernovae blow!

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

  • MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 11:36 AM EDT
    • MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM EDT
      • MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 12:18 PM EDT
        • MUST? - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 01:51 PM EDT
lying to the jury
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, October 16 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT
Makes sense that Apple were so desperate to not allow any prior Samsung phones
to be admitted as evidence. It'd have been far, far harder to argue their
design in unique and Samsung infringes if evidence showed that Samsung were
using their own designs.
But with Apple, only today, getting the Design patent for the iPad (with the
joojoo tab coming out first!) it's... certainly odd.

The judge's actions in all this continue to confuse me. I don't know if she's
monumentally incompetent, biased to protect her share value, or is just
preparing the case for the appeal.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

This is not lying.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 17 2012 @ 05:13 AM EDT
"If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that the overall appearance of an accused Samsung design is substantially the same as the overall appearance of the claimed Apple design patent, and that the accused design was made, used, sold, offered for sale, or imported within the United States, you must find that the accused design infringed the claimed design."

The article explains that this statement is, in fact, false. The judge must have known that her statements was false because it was incomplete. That makes it a lie.

The jury is supposed to decide matters of fact, not matters of law.

The judge explains to the jury exactly what their answers to certain questions will mean with regard to the matters of fact they have to decide.

If the judge's explanations make the jury answer questions that are not relevant to the case, that just means that the answers are not useful and will hopefully get tossed by the appellate court instead of being reinterpreted as answers to questions that should have been asked instead.

I don't see that the judge is lying by telling the jury how he expects them to interpret his instructions, even if this interpretation happens to not help with finding justice. But that is a "matter of law" question, and thus not the jury is accountable for any mistake in that but the judge himself.

It may be a nuisance if the judge is wasting everyone's time by letting the jury work on decisions that are ultimately not relevant, but it is not lying but rather procedural error.

[ 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 )