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 537459
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Clutching at straws
by curthibbs on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 19:02 UTC in reply to "Clutching at straws"
curthibbs
Member since:
2012-10-03

"Does anybody honestly think that any of this stuff about this juror made any difference to the trials outcome?"

Absolutely! You need to go read the groklaw coverage on this. The whole thing needs to be thrown out and redone.

Reply Parent Score: 7

v RE[2]: Clutching at straws
by Hiev on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 19:07 in reply to "RE: Clutching at straws"
RE[3]: Clutching at straws
by WereCatf on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 19:37 in reply to "RE[2]: Clutching at straws"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Except that Groklaw credibility is close to zero.


That's news to me!

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Clutching at straws
by darcysmith on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 19:53 in reply to "RE: Clutching at straws"
darcysmith Member since:
2006-04-12

Sadly, Groklaw is heavily biased. It is too bad too, the used to be a good site for stuff. You would think that a site talking about legal issues would try to remain impartial.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Clutching at straws
by MOS6510 on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 20:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Clutching at straws"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

When a site (or person) becomes popular they want to stay popular, Groklaw is no different. They write what their readers want to read.

Reply Parent Score: 0