|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 04:04 PM EDT |
You say he didn't mention it, therefore he didn't lie about it.
Lies by
omission are real lies.
He was asked if he'd been involved in any legal
cases and he didn't mention either case. Of the 2 cases, Seagate suing him and
him counter-suing, he mentioned none.
He didn't mention it, therefore he
did lie about it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 04:25 PM EDT |
I don't understand why it matters whether or not Samsung knew about the jurors
previous case history. This is nonsense.
The issues are two-fold. First, the juror lied to the judge about his past.
Second is the issue of whether or not he, as a juror, could overcome his
experience/s and personal issues in order to be objective by limiting himself to
the facts at hand. The judge specifically asked him if he could be objective.
He said yes when he should have, at the very least, said SOMETHING to warn the
courtroom.
Whether or not Samsung had the resources to piece together in order to figure
out that the juror was lying is irrelevant. The fact of the matter seems to be
that the juror lied to the judge. That's not Samsung's fault. That
responsibility rests on the shoulders of the individual who lied. Furthermore,
the juror seems to have gone way out of his way in order to NOT be objective as
a juror (which is something that he told the judge he was able to not do).
Again, that is not Samsung's fault. That is the fault of the juror.
The argument over whether or not Samsung had the information at the time of jury
selection to realize the potential of the juror botching the case is a side show
to cover up the fact that the juror not only lied, but he went out of his way to
ensure a miscarriage of justice in the case.
Apple should be ashamed of themselves for making such a ridiculous argument.
Did Apple have the resources to know that the juror was lying at the time?
Maybe they should have been the ones to put it together and warn the judge that
his jury was already poisoned.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
