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.
Thread beginning with comment 537443
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 15:55 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

He only needed to mention what happened the last 10 years, his own case was well beyond that.

Reply Score: -2

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 16:05 in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

He only needed to mention what happened the last 10 years, his own case was well beyond that.


The courtroom transcripts say otherwise - as clearly mentioned and proven in the article.

Here is the question in, uh, question:

"LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS.
THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER
BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF,
A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?"

Nothing about a time period.

Edited 2012-10-03 16:13 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 16:26 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

There has to be a reason why he brings up the 10 year period. Maybe someone told him or he misunderstood something. Even if there is no 10 year period, if he believed there was one he didn't intentionally misled the judge.

But apparently Samsung didn't do much digging then or they decided to keep him in case they lost so they could use it as a reason for retrail.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by jared_wilkes on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 18:19 in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

And his response is truthful. Not a violation of voire dire.

All I see is Samsung pointing out the poor representation provided by their legal council.

Reply Parent Score: 0