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 think you missed the
OP's point. the judge said that Samsung should have delved deeper into Hogan's
background (presumably on the off chance he was lying in voir dire). IOW,
Samsung lost out because they did not do a deep background check. It is not
Hogan's lie (by omission) that is the problem, it is the judge's choice to
overlook the lie and make Sumsung responsible for the consequences by denying
them recourse through the judicial system.
If it is a slippery slope then
we have slide to the bottom already with the judge's ruling. The problem is
that if you don't background check a juror then you have no further recourse.
ISTM the judge's ruling demands that thorough lawyers perform deep background
checks on every juror which, of course, is ridiculous.
--- Our job
is to remind ourselves that there are more contexts
than the one we’re in now — the one that we think is reality.
-- Alan Kay [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|