|
Authored by: MDT on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:12 PM EDT |
What they're saying is, you can't just retry the damages,
you have to retry the whole trial if you want to retry it at
all.
Koh and Apple basically want to go forward with the idea
that the jury got everything but the damages right, but
Samsung say's 'no no no, that is not the law, you can not
just have a trial for damages, you have to have a trial for
both guilt and damages, and the 7th amendment says so'.
I think they may have a pretty good shot at that, non-lawyer
that I am. It's rather unfair to have a bunch of people
brought in, told Samsung is Guilty, and then say 'how much
do you punish them'. It's horribly prejudicial.
---
MDT[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: ArtimusClyde on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 03:20 PM EDT |
I believe they are arguing that a retrial on damages alone
violates it, because
they believe factual errors were used
in determining those damages. I may be
wrong though.
The Justices v.
Murray
So much of the 5th section of the Act of
Congress of
March 3, 1863, entitled "An act relating to
habeas corpus and regulating
proceedings in certain cases,"
as provides for the removal of a judgment in a
state court,
and in which the cause was tried by a jury, to the circuit
court
of the United States for a retrial on the facts and
law is not in pursuance of
the Constitution, and is void.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, April 03 2013 @ 04:43 PM EDT |
Parent asks ...
"Samsung doesn't want a retrial for damage?
why is it arguing about the Seventh Amendment?"
But Samsung DOES want a retrial.
They just don't want it to be limited to damages only.
Samsung writes ...
-------
The Seventh Amendment’s Reexamination Clause prohibits
a second jury from revisiting the findings of the first:
a jury can be instructed to apply an earlier verdict,
but where the first jury’s findings are not clearly stated,
and the second jury would have to either guess at what
the first jury found or reexamine the same factual issues
to do its job (potentially reaching inconsistent conclusions),
a broadened retrial is required.
--------
and
-------
In Gasoline Products, the Supreme Court reversed a
lower court order limiting a new trial to damages and
remanded for a new trial on liability as well because
“the question of damages on the counterclaim is so interwoven
with that of liability that the former cannot be submitted
to the jury independently of the latter without confusion
and uncertainty which would amount to a denial of a fair trial.”
-------[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|