OSNews

To fully lay bare the ignorance or willful misinformation of your comments, here is your quote in context:

"Samsung does not argue that Mr. Hogan introduced any outside knowledge specific to the facts of this case. Even if the standards related by Mr. Hogan were completely erroneous, those statements would still be barred by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) and cannot be considered in deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing."

i.e. Koh isn't just saying it's inadmissible. Nor is Koh merely saying that Samsung didn't produce evidence of such outside knowledge... She's stating that Samsung didn't even have the balls to make the argument that you are claiming is made evident because Pamela Jones says so. So to recap: Samsung didn't even make the argument you claim is clearly in evidence because it was untenable, such "evidence" is inadmissable, and the Koh doesn't buy the argument that there were outside facts improperly used to sway the jury even if that argument had been made and the evidence was admissable.

Edited 2012-12-18 20:05 UTC