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 537444
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by MOS6510
by Thom_Holwerda on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 16:05 UTC 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[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by anevilyak on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 16:48 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

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)

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by MrWeeble on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 17:03 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by MOS6510"
MrWeeble Member since:
2007-04-18

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

Reply Parent Score: 5

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