|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 04:31 PM EST |
You are absolutely correct on this. If jurors lie and commit perjury during voir
dire, why should the onus be on counsel to determine if every statement made was
correct. Some will point out the some of the statements in question here involve
a Samsung subsidiary, albeit activities prior to the acquisitions. But for the
judge to rule that it was Samsung's fault for allowing the prospect onto the
jury and therefore any malbehavior thereafter was the result of that failure,
belies logic and reason.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: eric76 on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 10:05 PM EST |
It would make it real tough for parties to lawsuits who don't have deep enough
pockets to be able to afford to check out the veracity of their jurors.
I guess that lying is perfectly fine with the judge as long as you don't get
caught until after the trial is over.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: OpenSourceFTW on Wednesday, December 19 2012 @ 01:35 PM EST |
They are rather weak, as they posit a false dichotomy between two extremes.
The fact that Hogan should have been more honest during questioning does not
imply that every single juror should be background-checked. Perhaps some should
be, but that is up to the parties to the case, not the judge. The parties depend
on jurors answering questions honestly to make decisions about who stays on the
case and who is removed.
---
I voted for Groklaw (Legal Technology Category) in the 2012 ABA Journal Blawg
100. Did you? http://www.abajournal.com/blawg100. Voting ends Dec 21.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
