|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 02:10 PM EST |
No, I just think you're reasoning backwards. You don't like
the verdict, so you're trying to fit what you believe into
the standards that exist.
The few exception that allow examination of a jury verdict
are exceptionally narrow. They do not deal with intrinsic
"knowledge" and "mental processes" of jurors. Should a juror
consult outside facts, that is (by definition) wrong. But
what people here keep believing, contrary to the history of
jurisprudence, is that jurors are blank slates. They aren't.
Juror were allowed on the jury that had prior experience
with patent law. If they had brought in a copy of Nimmer
into the jury room, then an evidentiary hearing would be
warranted. That's not the case.
These types of things happen on a pretty regular basis in
jury trials. Jurors will say, "Well, the plaintiff's demand
seemed high, so we cut down what they were asking for."
That's... well, not exactly legal. Or they'll say, "We
thought that an insurance company would probably pay for it,
so we didn't mind sockin' it to 'em." (Which, by the way, is
why evidence related to insurance coverage is generally
inadmissible). These aren't grounds for overturning a
verdict.
Jury deliberations are like sausage making. We value then
end product, but we really don't want to know how it gets
made.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|