Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 13:47 UTC
Legal "Samsung has now filed an unredacted version of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it. It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of 'implied bias' and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous 'evidence' of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure." It's a treasure trove of courtroom drama, this. Like this one: Hogan got sued by his former employer Seagate in 1993, causing him to go bankrupt. The lawyer in said case is now married to one of the partners of the law firm representing Samsung in this case. Samsung seems to implicitly - and sometimes explicitly - argue that Hogan had a score to settle in this case, because - get this - Samsung has been Seagate's largest shareholder since last year. Hogan failed to disclose the Seagate lawsuit during voire dire, which is a pretty serious matter. No matter whose side you're on, this is John Grisham-worthy.
Permalink for comment 537476
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Clutching at straws
by Laurence on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 21:11 UTC in reply to "Clutching at straws"
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

Does anybody honestly think that any of this stuff about this juror made any difference to the trials outcome?
If you even had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you wouldn't ask such a ridiculous question.

Quite often cases are won or lost primarily on the choices of the jury. Some individuals are more susceptible to some arguments than others are (e.g. you have a clear bias towards Apple so are more susceptible to arguments like "Apple invented all forms of prior art"). So the lawyers profile the potential jurors and try to select the best candidates for their case.

In this instance, Samsung majorly dropped the ball by not vetoing Hogan. The moment they knew he had a patent, they should have dismissed him as existing patent holders are more likely to be sympathetic with other patent holders than those accused of IP 'theft'.

However the problems didn't end there. Hogan went above and beyond the call of duty - he pretty much dictated how the other jurors should vote (OK, he didn't force them into voting a specific way, but his guidance was a massive influence for their decision).

This alone undermines the whole process of having a jury, but what's worse is that Hogan has prior history (re: the past trial) that gives him clear motivation for a vendetta vote instead of one decided impartially and based upon review of the evidence provided from both parties.

So not only do you have a potentially corrupt juror, but one that also influenced the rest of the jury to vote the same way he had and thus push through an unjust result.

To any sane person (read: anyone not blinded by their own Apple fanaticism), that would agree that this was a clear cut case of an unfair trial; a trial mislead by a single juror with a personal agenda.

So the real question is, does Samsung have enough of a case to get granted a retrial?

Edited 2012-10-03 21:21 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5