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 537486
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
How Groklaw colors the truth
by jared_wilkes on Wed 3rd Oct 2012 23:00 UTC
jared_wilkes
Member since:
2011-04-25

This is a key excerpt. This immediately follows the questioning of Hogan and another prospective juror, a Ms. Rougieri, about the experience with the legal system:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS FOR EVERYONE.
WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?

AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT.

SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HOGAN?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.


THE COURT: AND MS. ROUGIERI?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

THE COURT: OKAY. ANYONE ELSE IN THE
FIRST ROW?


The Court is looking for any legal experience and if they pledge to not let any legal experiences affect their decision making.

The Court goes on to ask about patent experience and if it will color their decision making. (The Google guy doesn't go through all of the Android (or ChromeOS?) patents that he contributed to or is an assignee.) And so on with other experiences and if those experiences disqualify them.

Reply Score: 0

TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

So what was your point? The juror said in later interviews that he used previous knowledge exactly as he told the judge that he wouldn't. How does that show Groklaw as anything other than spot on?

Reply Parent Score: 4