|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 02:35 PM EDT |
I agree with you, but I think that is obviously a subjective judgement. At what
point would suspicions be high enough to warrant the fishing expedition? To what
extent should a juror's post-trial public statements or the verdict itself count
toward changing the level of suspicion?
Interestingly, an excuse raised in the emails, but not in the filings, is that
some published sources speculated post-trial that Hogan's patents might mean he
had a patent agreement that caused a bias. Supposedly that created a reason to
get all financial information they could, which included looking at the
bankruptcy records. I assume that wasn't mentioned in the brief because the
public speculation wasn't based on any information that Samsung didn't have.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 02:57 PM EDT |
"that bolsters the argument that Samsung had no good reason to go
investigating until after the verdict when Hogan started mentioning all the
things he'd omitted during voir dire."
I think you may need to be careful about what you think that Hogan started
mentioning before they started investigating. I think he may have already talked
about how the jury went about making decisions and talked about being proud to
serve on the jury, and about sending a message, but I would have to check dates.
He certainly didn't mention the lawsuit involving Seagate until after he knew
that Samsung knew about it, so that doesn't count. Was else did he omit? I can't
think of anything. I think he may have already claimed that he used his
preexisting understanding of the law, which violated what he promised under
oath, but that's not really an omission and I'm not sure if that justifies the
investigation. (I'm also not sure that I trust that he really believed that the
law ever worked that way, but there isn't any way to prove that he didn't.)[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
