|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 10:11 PM EDT |
Your memory is OK. It's mentioned in paragraph 5 if the declaration PJ included
in the update.
I think Samsung probably would be better off leaving the question unanswered. If
Samsung says the fraud claim happened, it had better have happened or Samsung
could get in trouble. If Samsung points to the Reuters article and acts like it
might have happened, it raises the question of why did Hogan say that to Reuters
and why didn't he mention it to the court, without Samsung risking getting in
trouble. They don't need to believe what Hogan told Reuters to do that. If,
instead, they say that they can't find any evidence of the claim, then they have
hearsay evidence that he lied to Reuters (not a huge concern for the court), but
take off the table the question of whether or not he should have mentioned the
possible fraud claim during jury selection (probably a much bigger concern for
the court). I think that would be the best option for them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|