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 537456
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by MOS6510
by jared_wilkes on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 18:13 UTC 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

RE[6]: Comment by MOS6510
by jared_wilkes on Thu 4th Oct 2012 15:18 in reply to "RE[5]: Comment by MOS6510"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Yes, trials are limited in time. So what? Voire dire doesn't go on forever, ad infinitum so that every personal fact of every potential juror is laid bare. It is the Court and legal representations responsibility to unearth the most relevant facts, and beyond that it's the Court's responsibility to pledge a citizen to uphold the law.

Reply Parent Score: 1