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 537449
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510
by anevilyak on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 16:48 UTC 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[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by jared_wilkes on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 18:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by MOS6510"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

I also don't see Samsung's follow-up question of, "And have you been involved in other legal cases? If so, please describe them." Because, otherwise, you are just pointing to a couple of questions that he answered perfectly truthfully.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510
by anevilyak on Thu 4th Oct 2012 00:14 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510"
anevilyak Member since:
2005-09-14

As I previously pointed out, that was due to the time constraints Judge Koh imposed on the trial, they really couldn't do as thorough of a juror investigation as they realistically would have liked without cutting into their allotted time for the rest of the case. Furthermore, while his answer may have been truthful, the lawsuit he did disclose was arguably much less relevant to the case than the one he omitted, and his comments in various interviews post-trial have made it clear that he did so deliberately to ensure he got on the jury.

Reply Parent Score: 5