Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 13:47 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 537444
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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.
RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by anevilyak on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 16:48
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
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.
Simply legally covering his ass, nothing more. Nothing whatsoever in the court transcripts (which are publicly available) indicates a 10 year limit was ever presented to the jurors in any context. Furthermore, since the case in question (and associated bankruptcy) was > 10 years ago, it also wouldn't show up in a routine background check, so without him stating it, there would have been no other way to discover it without significantly more time for juror verification than was given. (Judge Koh put some quite severe and unusual time constraints on pretty much every aspect of this case)
RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by MrWeeble on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 17:03
in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
Seems to be a problem with this particular juror in that he doesn't pay attention to questions and instructions and does his own thing.
That's fine in many areas of life - usually the only person who gets screwed is you; but jury service is something special where other people's lives are in your hands and you have to pay attention and confuse yourself
RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510
by jared_wilkes on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 18:19
in reply to "RE: Comment by MOS6510"





Member since:
2005-06-29
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