|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 01:41 PM EST |
AFAIK Judge Koh had no admission by the jury foreman of any
misconduct. The lay press has been full of it, but that's hearsay.
Hogan didn't volunteer any declaration to the court, and Groklaw
is unlikely to have blinked and missed it.
Judge Koh has several times told counsel for the parties to
reduce their submissions. I suspect she wouldn't want to increase
the caseload, or force a retrial by hauling in jurors for bawling out.
Down that path lies madness.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 03:09 PM EST |
It's interesting that rule 606's exceptions are exactly the
issues Samsung was raising.
(A) extraneous prejudicial information was improperly
brought to the jury’s attention;
(B) an outside influence was improperly brought to bear on
any juror; or
(C) a mistake was made in entering the verdict on the
verdict form.
She gets around it, barely, but it seems clear that the
motivation is closure so the whole game can move on to
appeal. It's certainly not the most wrong thing she's
written, but it's fairly weakly supported. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 03:11 PM EST |
Her reaction and unwillingness in the last
hearing on this now makes
a
lot more sense. But the reasoning is somewhat
typical as the
evidence is essentially hearsay and jury decisions are
treated
with the highest respect. Of course, she could
address
that by recalling the
jury (if possible) and asking under
oath but that would be extra work. Rather
let the Appeals
Court decide since she knows that this case is going
there and it is far better for the legal system that Appeals
Court overrules
her on this decision than the overruling her
if she had rejected the jury
decision. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, December 20 2012 @ 11:46 AM EST |
I didn't bother reading the Apple stuff. But I have to grudgingly agree with her
reading of the Samsung motion. I'm horrified that the expectations on council
for researching jurors are so high, but if they are then Samsung should have
researched. The extraneous evidence was always going to be hard to argue with so
few precedents, and so close to the fine line between introducing evidence and
utilising experience. IANAL, but I follow her argument and I can't fault it.
On the whole, if it is that close, then she probably decided correctly. As
someone else said, better to side with her jury and be overturned, than to
overturn them and be overturned on appeal.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
