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 537477
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Clutching at straws
by jared_wilkes on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 21:22 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Clutching at straws"
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

How 'bout taking a juror mentioning his last court experience as an answer to the question of "have you ever been involved in a legal proceeding" as a lie and violation of voire dire?

I can't see how any rational person can make that leap without already having a conclusion they want to occur already set in their head.

Edited 2012-10-03 21:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1