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
"if the jury is technical" | 248 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
"if the jury is technical"
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:00 PM EDT
Does not matter. The jury knows that an iPhone is twice as expensive as a droid phone. They get it. They know this trial is all about money. They can smell that Apple started this farce because Apple is being taken to the cleaners.

---

You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

"if the jury is technical"
Authored by: Wol on Wednesday, August 22 2012 @ 12:09 PM EDT
It shouldn't be like that. The jury - in the modern system - should be twelve
people at random. That means you DON'T stack it by eliminating people who might
know what's going on. In fact, if you go back to the *true* meaning of "a
jury of your peers" it was stacked with people who DID know what was going
on.

It's not quite the way it's done in the UK, but I'd like to see jury selection
consist of "here's the next eighteen people on the list, prosecution and
defence each pick three people to throw off. If you want to throw off more, you
have to *justify* *every* *one*. And if one of the three you throw off just
happens to have been thrown off twice before, you get surprised by having to
justify it." Once that's done, the first twelve are your jurors, with the
rest (if any) being alternates as required.

Suddenly, you can't stack juries any more ...

Cheers,
Wol

[ 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 )