|
Authored by: egan on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:11 PM EDT |
IANAL, but if it's in the press, that is, published in the public domain,
then I'd imagine it's proper for parties to cite as evidence in subsequent
motions and appellate briefs.
It's at least enough to justify an
evidentiary hearing where the jury foreman, and the jury, may be questioned
about what was said, thought and done in reaching this patently absurd
verdict.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, September 04 2012 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
Yes! It points to the main problem with juries. Any persuasive person can swing
a jury ever which way. That is a simple function of group psychology.
How do Britain cope with this kind of problem? Has it ever occurred there? Their
history is much longer than that of America.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, September 05 2012 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
The jury foreman has made some statements that to me sounds
like he wanted to use this verdict as a way of strengthening
his own patents. If this is indeed the case, is there
anything that can be done about that?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|