|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, October 22 2012 @ 11:09 AM EDT |
" The judge on
more than one occasion during voir dire
told them not only that it mattered if
they were in any litigation before but
also why it mattered. And she asked the
group more than once that same question."
Neither of those address Wol's point. Judge Koh never made it clear (in the
afternoon transcripts anyway) if she were interested in all lawsuits that a
prospective juror may have been involved in, or just one of them. No one ever
asked a juror (in the pages available -- some seemed to be missing), "Were
there any other lawsuits besides what you mentioned?" You can't absolutely
rule out that someone who didn't know better might have thought that they were
done once they mentioned at least one lawsuit.
The copy of the transcripts that I'm using is in here:
http://groklawstatic.ibiblio.org/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf Nothing in there
absolutely disputes Wol's point. Note: I am not saying that Hogan shouldn't have
known better, particularly if he had ever been called in for jury duty before,
but it's not in the transcript. Maybe the "should have known better"
would be enough. I don't know.
It's been a few years since I've been called in for jury duty, but IIRC, I was
asked much more clearly if there were any other lawsuits in addition to the ones
I had already mentioned. Judge Koh didn't do that, and she never said,
"Tell me about all of them." That was poor questioning on her part. In
hindsight, Samsung's lawyers should have clarified things for the jurors, but
they didn't.
I could be completely wrong. Something could have been said in the morning
session and I wouldn't know about it. Also I don't know what's missing from the
missing pages of the PDF I was looking at.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
