decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The other way around | 697 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Why is she talking with her husband?
Authored by: athelas on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 02:28 PM EDT
I personally think it's completely unreasonable to not allow such conversations,
especially in a trial of this length. I understand why they want to disallow
it, but I would be unable to not have a discussion with my spouse about a
particularly vexing question. They deserve my respect more than the court does.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Because it is contempt of court,
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 03:40 PM EDT


It is not the Juror and her husband/family/friends/the internet/twitter that
have been asked to find the facts.


It is contempt of court and (in the UK at least) punishable by a jail term.


Send her down.


Mistrial


New Jury


And this time don't let Oracle lie about the compilation/collection part and
lets do the abstraction/filtration that should have been done first time
round.,

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Why is she talking with her husband?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 07 2012 @ 10:59 PM EDT
"But I think it would be difficult to spend the weekend with
someone and not talk about what you had been doing all week."

Obviously you haven't been married _that_ long :-)

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

In a murder trial up here, I was working with a family member, guess what?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 08:20 AM EDT
n a murder trial up here, I was working with a family member
of a juror, guess what?

The whole family sat around dinner and discussed the trial
that the mother (older family with grown children) was a
juror on. They had a Sunday family dinner, and it was
discussed, they all knew the guy who was killed (everyone
around did). The person who told me this was one of the
family around the table, and at work the following Monday, I
brought the trial up, and this family member said her Mom
was a juror. Then went on to tell how the family was
talking about it, and that they thought the killing was
justified (that was, in the end, the verdict, that the jury
came up with). These conversations happened before the jury
phase where they meet to decide. It's hard to prevent
family conversations from going on. In this case, no
matter what happened, the actions of the fellow that was
killed, lead up to being killed (and there was no sympathy
from the side of the peers that sat on the jury, or their
families, it seemed). Not Guilty.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The other way around
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 01:08 PM EDT
I was working for an American firm in my country (Netherlands)
Through her professional contacts my wife knew that that commpany was going to
close the division where I worked.
She did not disclose that to me because she was not supposed to talk about it. I
highly regard her that she didn't.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

She shouldn't be
Authored by: FamilyManFirst on Tuesday, May 08 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT
I've served on a US jury twice. Both times I've explained to my family that I can't discuss anything about the case until it's over. Everyone understood and we talked about other things.

That's your duty as a juror. If you can't do that, you should say so during voir dire and be dismissed.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )